The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider and weigh the evidence presented, including F.I.R., chargesheet, and post-mortem report, in determining liability and compensation in road accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Radhey Shyam and Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment and award dated 20.5.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Court No.2, Rampur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 4 of 2001.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 1.11.2000 when the deceased Kuldeep Singh was going to Post Office, Galla Mandi Road, Bilaspur, by his bicycle, the driver of Truck, bearing no.HR 26 GA 1507, driving the vehicle rashly and negligently came and dashed the bicycle at about 10:00 a.m. from behind due to which the deceased died on the spot.

4. The claimants being legal heirs of the deceased preferred the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.60,10,000/- from the respondents. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was the sole bread-winner of the family. He was dealing with the electrical goods and he was earning at least Rs.6,000/- per month and because of his death the entire family has been rendered helpless. An F.I.R. came to be registered, bearing no.399 of 2000, Police Station Bilaspur, district Rampur.

5. The Apex Court in UPSRTC Vs. Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 948, has held that all the issues raised in the memo of appeal are required to be addressed and decided by the first appellate court.

6. Respondent no.3 – owner of offending vehicle has filed reply denying certain facts and has contended that the claimants have claimed an exorbitant amount. The written statement specifically contends that the driver of the truck was driving the truck at a slow speed. It was driven by a driver, who had valid licence. The driver was not negligent. Accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased and, therefore, the owner or driver would not be liable. The driver had valid driving licence and the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Limited. The Insurance company – respondent no.2 has filed its reply of denial and has contended that the vehicle was not insured with it. It was being driven by driver not having valid driving licence.

7. The Tribunal framed about 5 issues and answered the first issue against the appellants herein and rejected the claim petition. One of the reasons assigned for rejecting the claim petition is that PW1 could not convey as to whether at 10:00 a.m. it was dark or it was day light. The Tribunal has surmised that PW1 has nowhere stated that he knew English and, therefore, it was very doubtful whether he could have read the number printed in English of the vehicle in question. The Tribunal held that no other eye witness named in F.I.R. was examined by the claimants before the Tribunal and further in his oral testimony opined that PW1 did not convey that the accident occurred at 10:00 a.m. Though, this fact was deposed by PW2. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that when driver ran away from the place of accident, how PW1 came to know his name and number of vehicle. At the out set, these findings are perverse. The Tribunal has not discussed the reply filed by the respondent wherein the respondent has not denied the accident having taken place. The driver has not stepped into the witness box. The findings are based on surmises and conjectures drawn by the learned Tribunal without any pleading.

8. Once F.I.R., chargesheet and the post-mortem report are filed before the Tribunal, prima facie, they would prove that the accident had occurred with the vehicle in question. These are three basic facts, which are required to be established accident involving the motor vehicles even in the year of accident i.e. 2001. The Tribunal with utmost respect has fallen in grave error in dismissing the claim petition. The post-mortem report of the deceased goes to show that he died after he sustained injuries caused due to vehicular accident. The owner of the truck admitted the factum of the