The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles related to motor accident claim petitions, including the burden of proof, assessment of negligence, calculation of compensation, and determination of the rate of interest on the compensation amount.

JUDGMENT :

(Oral judgment by Hon’ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. By way of this appeal, the claimants-appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased have challenged the judgment and order dated 17.10.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 224 of 2013. The appellants’ claim petition for compensation on account of the death of the sole bread earner came to be dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. The brief facts as culled out from the record, placed before this Court are that on 09.01.2013 deceased Rajendra Kumar Pal was returning to his house after completing his duty from Ghaziabad Railway Station. At about 7:30 PM, when the deceased reached near Ghantaghar and when the deceased beside the road, a motorcycle bearing no. DL 13 SF 1906, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the deceased and fled towards Mohan Nagar.

3. The deceased being on bicycle is not dispute and the accident occurred between the bicycle driven by the deceased and the motorcycle driven by the opponent.

4. In this accident, deceased sustained serious injuries. He was taken to Narendra Mohan Hospital from where he was referred to Max Hospital, Delhi where on 21.01.2013 he died during treatment on account of injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident. It is also averred that at the time of accident, the deceased was serving in Northern Railway. The First Information Report of the accident was lodged at police station Kotwali, District Ghaziabad.

5. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. None is present on behalf of owner.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the cliamants-appellants that learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition of the appellants on the ground that appellants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle in question, though involvement of vehicle is accepted by the learned Tribunal but learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective. It is also submitted that Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the Sachin Kumar who was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the claimants-appellants that learned Tribunal has not considered the averments made by driver of motorcycle in his written statement where he has admitted the accident. Although, he has maintained that he was not negligent while driving the motorcycle. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that factum of accident is accepted by the driver of the motorcycle yet the learned Tribunal has not placed reliance on the aforesaid averment. It is next submitted that site plan, prepared by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, is not taken into consideration by learned Tribunal even the evidence of eye witnesses have been discarded/brushed aside. It is submitted that finding recorded by the learned Tribunal are perverse and bad in the eye of law and against the settled legal position for deciding claim petition arising out of motor accident.

8. Mr. Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that on the basis of evidence on record, it is nowhere proved that the motorcycle in question was involved in the aforesaid accident. It is further submitted that First Information Report was lodged against unknown vehicle and after two months of the accident, an application was given to the police authorities mentioning that the motorcycle no. DL 13 SF 1906 was involved. Evidence in this regard is totally concocted as to how the informant knew the number of offending motorcycle after two months of the accident.

9. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that learned Tribunal meticulously examined the evidence on record and found that entire evidence regarding the acci