IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that negligence in motor vehicle accidents must be proven by evidence, and the failure to consider eyewitness accounts can lead to an unjust dismissal of claims.

JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

Challenge in instant appeal has been directed against award dated 12.08.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short “the Tribunal”) whereby claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants who are widow, minor son, minor daughter and mother of deceased Ranjit Singh respectively has been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief as emerged from the claim petition are that on 30.07.2003, Ranjit Singh (since deceased), his wife Manjit Kaur (appellant) and son Harshpreet Singh had gone to Village Chhat to get medicine on Scooter No. PB-11-B-8255. Scooter was being driven by Ranjit Singh. When they reached near Banur Barrier, Dalbir Singh brother of Manjit Kaur met them on the way. Dalbir Singh, who was travelling on his separate scooter, started following the scooter driven by Ranjit Singh. At about 12-15 PM, they turned towards Village Chhat from bus stand Chhat. In the meantime, a Scorpio bearing registration No.PB-07-6849 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from Patiala side and struck against the scooter driven by Ranjit Singh, as a result of which Ranjit Singh and Manjit Kaur (appellant) suffered multiple injuries. They were removed to PGI, Chandigarh. Ranjit Singh succumbed to his injuries on 31.07.2003 whereas appellant No.1-Manjit Kaur was given treatment in PGI Chandigarh. Accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Claimants had suffered a great loss due to the injuries suffered by her as well as her deceased husband.

3. Upon notice, respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

4. Respondent No.3 in its written statement took up preliminary objections that the driver of the Scorpio was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the claim petition was bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. On merits, the contentions raised in the claim petition were denied. It was averred that three persons were travelling on the Scooter.

5. Replication was filed by the claimant-appellant wherein averments made in the written statement were denied. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:

“1.Whether Manjit Kaur received injuries in an accident which had taken place on 30.07.2003 at about 12-15 pm in the revenue limits of Village Chhat due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1- Lakhwinder Singh while driving Scorpio Turbo No.PB07-6849? OPA

2. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, if so its effect? OPR

3. Whether claimant is entitled to receive compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? OPP

4. Relief.”

6. In order to prove their case, claimants examined PW-1 Dalbir Singh, PW3-Harish Kumar besides appellant No.1-Manjit Kaur, who herself appeared in the witness box as PW2 and tendered in evidence copy of FIR as Ex.P2, copy of Post Mortem Report, copy of MLR as Ex.P5, copy of death Certificate, copy of RC as Ex.P6, copy of DL as Ex.P7, copies of FDRs as Ex.P8 to Ex.10, copy of bank pass book as Ex.P11 and Ex.P12, copies of Jamabandis as Ex.P13 to Ex.P15 and copy of RC as Ex.P16.

7. On the other hand, respondents tendered in evidence copy of Insurance Policy Ex.R2, copy of driving licence Ex.R2 and cover note as Ex.R3.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and based on the material evidence as also documentary evidence brought on record, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, hence the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claim petition of the appellants was dismissed only on the ground that the deceased Ranjit Singh-husband of appellant No.1-Manjit Kaur suddenly turned his Scooter towards his right side without giving any signal in violation of the traffic rules, because of which accident took place. He further contends that the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition has not taken into consideration the co