In motor accident claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt, distinguishing it from criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The case is listed before this Court for referral to the “Special Mediation Drive-Mediation ‘For the Nation’ List”.

2. Learned counsel for the parties contend that the matter cannot be referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

3. In view of above, with the consent of the parties the appeal is taken up for hearing today itself.

FAO-595-2006

4. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 24.11.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 /163A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased-Suresh Kumar, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

5. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that on 21.5.2004, Suresh Kumar Bhardwaj after doing his job was returning to his home on scooter bearing registration No.HR-35-A-4495. When he reached near Ajronda Chowk, a Car bearing registration No.HR-29-J-6600 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), came from behind at a high speed being driven by Hari Dev in a rash and negligent manner. The car dashed into scooter of Suresh Kumar Bhardwaj. Resultantly, Suresh Kumar Bhardwaj sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. The matter was reported to the police, whereupon, FIR was registered regarding the accident.

6. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed their separate written replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

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

1. Whether the accident which took place on 21.5.2004, at about 11.00 P.M. near Ajronda Chowk P.S. Central Faridabad, has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Car No.HR-29-J-6600 by Hari Dev, respondent No.2? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is decided in favour of petitioners to what amount of compensation petitioners shall be entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether petition is not maintainable in present form, for lack of cause of action? OPR

4. Whether respondent No.2 was not holding valid and effective DL at the time of accident ? OPR-3

5. Relief.

8. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim-petition. Hence, the claimants/appellants filed the present appeal for grant of compensation.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

9. Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia contends that the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellants-claimants were not able to prove the involvement of the vehicle and rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, he prays that present appeal be allowed.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contends that the appellants were not able to prove the involvement of the vehicle and FIR was registered against unknown vehicle and driver, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

12. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-

ISSUE NO.1.

10. That in order to prove this issue petitioners got examined PW-20. Vishambher, he stated that FIR No.151 dated 22.5.2004, under Sections 279, 304A IPC was recorded on statement of Om Parkash. Challan against Hari Dev Sharma was filed in court. He proved on record copy of FIR as Ex.PC. PW-4 Om Parkash stated that on 21.5.2004, he was coming from Delhi at about 10.00 PM.

He stepped down from bus a