Negligence in motor vehicle accidents can be established through a charge sheet, and insurance liability persists unless proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents even in the revised list.

2. Present appeal has been filed with the following main relief:

"To allow this appeal and set aside and quash the impugned award dated 05.01.2001, passed by the Ist A.D.J./M.A.C.T. Sultanpur, in Claim Petitioner No.153/1996 (Smt. Shanti Devi and Ors. v. Ram Bibhooti Singh and Ors.)"

3. The facts of the present case are that that the claimant/respondents no.1 to 6 had filed claim petition mentioning therein that husband of the respondent no.1/ Rajdev was going on his cycle to Sultanpur on 20.09.196 at 11:00 am. Thereafter, he suddenly dashed by a jeep bearing no. UP 44 A 3901 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle') and because of this accident, husband of respondent no.1, namely, Rajdev had died.

4. In support of the aforesaid claim, the claimants have also filed the FIR dated 20.09.1996 lodged by one Shambhu Prasad at 01:35 pm regarding the aforesaid accident. Apart from the above FIR, the claimants have also filed charge sheet dated 20.11.1996 in the aforesaid case as the same was filed against the owner of the offending vehicle (respondent no.7). The respondent no.1/Shanti Devi who is the wife of the deceased Rajdev examined herself as PW-1, though she was not the eyewitness of the incident, however, PW-2 appeared before the learned The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') claiming himself as eye-witness of the accident. In his statement, though, he has supported the incident of accident caused by the offending vehicle but he also stated that he could not recognize the driver of vehicle because after the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had run away leaving the offending vehicle on the spot.

5. The WS (written statement) was also filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, namely, Ram Bibhooti Singh (respondent no.7) as well as driver of the vehicle, namely, Vijay Shanker Yadav (respondent no.8) in which respondents no.7 and 8 admitted that the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no.8 at the time of accident.

6. Present appellant/ the National Insurance Co. Ltd. has also filed WS denying the aforesaid accident but did not pleaded anything in its WS as to who was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Though, the driving license of the respondent no.8 was also filed by the claimants. The learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 05.01.2001 allowed the claim of the claimants and directed the present appellant, who was the insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,84,808/- to the claimants, along with interest @ 6%.

7. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount awarded is absolutely erroneous as the same was passed without considering the evidence on record and also ignoring the fact that the charge sheet was filed against the respondent no.7 who was the owner of offending vehicle and he did not produce his driving license, while in the claim petition, it is alleged that the respondent no.8 was the driver. It was further contended by the counsel for the appellant that PW-2 in his statement did not state that while driving the vehicle, the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent which is the basic requirement for awarding the compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short M.V. Act).

8. It was lastly contended by the counsel for the appellant that if any liability arises, that will be of the owner of the offending vehicle, against whom the charge sheet has been filed because the owner of the offending vehicle has not filed any driving license. In support of his contention, counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gian Chand and Others 1998 Vol-I T.A.C. 36 (S.C.), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the driver of the offending