JUDGMENT

Ms. Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants against dismissal of their claim petition by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal") vide Award dated 11.03.2016 passed in MACT Case No.RT-36 dated 20.09.2013/28.10.2014 filed under section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Claimants are the widow and two sons of deceased-Suresh Bansal @ Suresh Kumar Aggarwal.

2. Claim petition was filed by the appellants herein alleging that the deceased-Suresh Bansal @ Suresh Kumar Aggarwal had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 28.06.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley bearing registration No.GJ-2B-8284 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') by respondent No.1, which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 herein.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal formulated the following issues:

"1. Whether death of Suresh Bansal was caused in motor vehicle accident dated 28.06.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor No.GJ2B-8284 by the respondent No.1? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of death of Suresh Bansal in motor vehicle accident, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3

4. Whether the respondent No.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-3

5. Relief."

4. Learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle on part of respondent No. 1 was not made out. As the learned Tribunal found that no negligence is attributable to the driver of tractor-trolley bearing registration No.GJ-2B-8284, learned Tribunal did not consider it necessary to return a finding on issues No.3 and 4.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants:

a) that the learned Tribunal while deciding issue No.1 totally ignored that if the version in DDR and FIR is slightly different, it does not mean that the accident has not occurred due to the use of tractor-trolley, rather in FIR it was mentioned that the tractor-trolley was driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. It is submitted that this fact is also supported by the statement of PW2-Balwinder Singh, who was the eyewitness of the accident but the learned Tribunal has wrongly discarded the statement of Balwinder Singh by observing that his version is not trustworthy;

b) that the learned Tribunal totally lost sight of the fact that the learned Tribunal is called upon to decide the claim petition under the Act which is a beneficial legislation, and it is not a criminal case where case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt;

c) that the learned Tribunal further failed to appreciate that if there was delay of 16 days in lodging the FIR, it did not mean that the same was an after-thought; especially, in view of the fact that the DDR had been already lodged on the same day. It is submitted that although there may be some variation in initial version of DDR however, the same was natural because eyewitness was none other than the employee of the deceased and due to fear earlier, he reported a wrong version before the police but later on after due deliberation, the correct version was reported in the FIR;

d) that the learned Tribunal totally ignored the statement of HC Satinder Singh RW3 who clearly stated in his cross-examination that earlier as per the complaint the name of the driver of the