IMPORTANT POINT
Accurate identification of the offending vehicle is essential in negligence claims to establish liability and entitlement to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(Sudeepti Sharma, J.) :

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 31.01.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the claim of the appellants has been rejected and the claim petition filed by the appellants is dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that on 19.01.2004 Gopal Giri (deceased) along with Puran Chand had gone to Manav Chowk Ambala City for some work. After doing their work, they were returning to their houses from Manav Chowk on their respective bicycles by peddling the same on the correct left hand side of the road. Gopal Giri (deceased) was paddling his bicycle and was 20-25 yards ahead of the said Puran Chand. At about 10.00 PM when they reached near Railway bridge, opposite to New Anaj Mandi on the road leading to Manav Chowk to bus stand, in the meantime, a scooter bearing registration No. PB-11-U-0461 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 came from the opposite side and by going to the wrong side of the road hit his scooter against the bicycle of the deceased. As a result of the accident Gopal Giri (deceased) along with his bicycle fall down on the pucca portion of the road and his head struck against the bank of over bridge and received grievous and fatal injuries. He was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala City by said Puran Chand from the spot where the doctors declared him dead on account of the injuries suffered in the said accident which was witnessed by said Puran Chand. The accident took place due to sole rash and negligent driving of scooter bearing registration No. PB-11-U-0461 by respondent No.1.

It is further mentioned in the claim petition that deceased Gopal Giri was young man of 28 years of age. He was working as Cook/Langri with the Superintendent of Police Railways, Ambala for the last 8-9 years and earning Rs.2,500/- per month. The appellants-claimants were totally dependent upon the deceased.

3. Upon notice, respondent No.2 i.e National Insurance Company Limited appeared and denied the factum of claim.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the death of Gopal Giri occurred due to the accident arising out of the use of scooter No. PB-11-U-0461? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR.

4. Whether the claimants have no locus standi to file the present claim petition? OPR.

5. Whether the claimants have not come with the clean hands? OPR.

6. Whether there is collusion between the claimants and respondent No.1? OPR.

7. Whether at the time to alleged accident the offending scooter was being driven by a person without holding valid and effective driving licence? OPR.

8. Relief.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that only because the number of the scooter was wrongly mentioned as PB-11-U-0461 instead of PB-11-U-0416, the claim of the appellants was rejected. He further contends that evidence led by the insurance company is not admissible as per Evidence Act, 1872. Further that the driver of the offending vehicle was facing trial, that is sufficient to prove that there is rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver because of which death of Gopal Giri occurred. And the FIR and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C are public documents and those were not objected to by any of the respondents. The driver (Respondent No.1) was not examined to rebut the factum of accident. It is beneficial legislation, the standard of proof does not require higher standard of proof for proving the accident. Learned counsel further states that the claim petition filed by the appellants is wrongly dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that he was proceeded against ex-parte by the Tribunal. He further submits that learned Tribunal has rightly decided the claim p