A claimant must provide credible evidence to establish liability and causation in a motor vehicle accident; registration of FIR alone is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant aggrieved by the award dated 16.08.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing his claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the claimant-appellant filed a claim petition averring therein that on 29.04.2011, he along with Om Parkash and Mahender Singh was going towards Narnaul from his Village Gehli on a three-wheeler bearing registration No.HR-66-8055. The said three-wheeler was driven by Mahender Singh at a moderate speed by observing traffic rules and at about 7:30 am when they reached near Sainio Ki Dhani near Canal, Singhana Road, Narnaul, a TATA 407 four-wheeler bearing registration No.RJ-18-GA-1340, which was being driven by respondent No.1 at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently, came from behind and hit the three-wheeler. As a result, the claimant-appellant fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his person. The rear tyre of the TATA 407 crushed the hand of the claimant-appellant. After the accident the claimant-appellant was taken to Government Hospital, Narnaul where he was given first aid and his medico legal examination was also conducted. Thereafter, on seeing the condition of the claimant-appellant, he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak where he remained admitted as an indoor patient and was operated upon. It was further averred that the accident was witnessed by Om Parkash and Mahender Singh and many other persons who were present on the spot.

3. Upon notice, respondents No.1 and 2 filed their joint written statement averring therein that the claimant-appellant had filed a vague, false and frivolous claim petition. It was further averred that the vehicle in question was falsely implicated just to get compensation. It was further averred that the alleged accident took place on 29.04.2011 and the FIR was lodged on 05.05.2011. Respondent No.3 filed a separate written statement raising various preliminary objection regarding cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties, locus standi etc. On merits it was pleaded that no such accident had taken place and the offending vehicle in question has been falsely involved in the present case.

4. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the motor vehicle accident which took place on 29.04.2011 at about 7:30 am in the area of near Sainio Ki Dhani, near Canal Singhana Road, Narnaul resulting into injuries to the petitioner – Bhupender – it was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.RJ-18-GA-1340 by respondent No.1? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent No.1 in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR

4. Relief.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition vide impugned award dated 16.08.2013 on the basis of finding on issue No.1 to the effect that the story put forth by the claimant-appellant was not believable as regard the manner of the accident and that the vehicle in question was falsely implicated only to get compensation and thus the question of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 did not arise. Hence, the present appeal against the impugned award.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition inasmuch as the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is wrong. It is further the