JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the dismissal of their claim petition by the learned MACT, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), vide Award dated 12.02.2019 passed in MACP Case No. 259 dated22.07.2015 filed under Sections 166/140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The 2 claimants are the parents of the deceased Sumit, who was 24 years old at the time of accident.

2. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that deceased Sumit had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 27.05.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Car bearing registration No.HR-07V-3303 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven and owned by respondent No.1; and insured by respondent No.2. However, learned learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that appellants had failed to prove the accident in question and had dismissed the claim petition of the appellants on the ground that “Petitioners have failed to prove the fact that accident in question has been caused by respondent No.1 while driving the car bearing registration No. HR-07V-3303 at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner.”

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior counsel for the appellants/claimants that in dismissing the Claim Petition, learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the accident had taken place when the deceased Sumit alongwith his friends Prabhjot Singh and Surender were going towards Solan. In the accident in question, Sumit had died; and Prabhjot being the only eye-witness had refrained from giving testimony against his friend Surender in the criminal trial, as the offending vehicle was driven and owned by respondent No.1-Surender, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. It is submitted that in any event, it is settled law that findings given by criminal court cannot be taken into consideration as per the evidence adduced before criminal court.

4. It is contradictorily submitted by learned Senior counsel for the appellants that the Ld. Tribunal has not appreciated the testimony of Prabhjot PW2 who has specifically deposed that the said accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Surender. It may not be out of place to mention here that since there were two vehicles involved in the said accident, the FIR could have been easily lodged against the driver of the other vehicle, but in the said case the true picture has been depicted in the FIR which is written immediately after the accident and inspire the confidence.

5. It is submitted that as the claimants are aged parents of the 24-year-old deceased, this Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant Rs.5 lacs to the appellants by way of ‘no fault liability’. In support of his prayer, learned counsel for the appellants relies upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Murti vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (SC) Law Finder Doc Id # 2091451. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be awarded to the appellant.

6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants.

7. The case as pleaded by the appellants in the claim petition before the learned Tribunal as recorded in para 2 of the impugned Award reads as follows:-

“2 The present petitions under Sections 166, 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only) have been instituted by the claimants Jog Dhian & another being L.R.'s of deceased person namely Sumit son of Jog Dhian, resident of village Sirsama, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, and injured Prabhjot Singh son of Sukhwinder Singh, resident of H