The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence, the correct application of legal provisions, and the perversity in the finding of the lower court in determining liability and compensation in motor accident claim cases.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for Insurance Company.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 28.11.1995 passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/VIII Additional District Judge, Etawah (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in claim petition No. 76 of 1994.

3. The accident in question occurred on the fateful date when the young child of the appellant breathed last while being treated.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that it was not proved that the motorcycle was involved in the accident. The fact that the driver was nabbed at the spot and he took the child to the hospital got admitted and that he was the owner of Hero Honda motor Cycle No. UP-78 E-6622, against whom the charge sheet is laid.

5. The principles for proving an accident are not as stringer as mentioned by the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The filing of charge sheet would make the owner and driver are liable as it was prima-facie prove involvement of the vehicle. The judgment of Ajai Prakash vs. M/s National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2010) 2 ALJ 1787 would come to the aid of the appellants. The provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have to be read so as to further beneficial legislation.

6. In our case the Tribunal has totally mislead itself into not believing the testimony of PW-1 and 2 who have withstood the cross examination. Just because the name of the driver was not mentioned in the FIR, cannot be ground to dismissing the petition. The driver was taken to Dr. Suresh Sharma also dismissal of claim petition is bad in eye of law.

7. The judgment of Supreme Court in Anita Sharma vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2021) 1 SCC 171 will apply to the facts of this case. The negligence is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence led before the Tribunal. The record and oral and documentary evidence led before the Tribunal below while dismissing the claim petition for claiming compensation for death of a minor son of the claimants by assigning reasons which are not germane to the facts and one of the reason is that the claimants did not examine the person who caught hold of the driver on spot had not been examined. This is a a hyper technical stand taken by the Tribunal in holding that the claimants had failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle. The accident which took place on 17.2.1994 can be said to have been proved as the driver of the motorcycle was nabbed at the place of the accident. The chick report was also on record. Charge sheet was led on 23.2.1994. The deceased died on 19.2.1994. The fact that Vijay Kumar took the child at the Etawah Hospital. Just because name of the owner was not given it cannot be said that the accident did not take place with the said motorcycle. PW-2 has deposed on oath and has proved the contends of FIR. PW-1 was an eye witness who has deposed manner in which the accident took place. PW-1 and PW-2 have corroborated each other. The fact that neither the motorcycle's driver and the owner have not stepped into the witness box to prove the contents of the reply. Thus the finding is perverse cannot be sustained. Once the charge sheet, FIR is filed, involvement of the vehicle is prima-facie proved it goes without saying that in absence of pleadings by the respondent-driver who has not stepped into witness box it will be have to be held that the driver was involved in committing the accident.

8. Recently in First Appeal From Order No. 4022 of 2017 (Om Pal Singh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others), decided on 19.12.2017, this Court has held that Commissioner and Motor Accident Tribunal are not civil Court and trappings of civil procedure should not be made fully applicable to the proceedings in the Tribunal. I am supported in my view, on the decision of Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Anwari and Another, 2000 (38) All. 761, thus the questi