JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Shri Rajesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT assailing the award dated 05.12.2019 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/4th Additional District Judge, Bahraich in Claim Petition No.38/70/2016 has awarded a sum of Rs.11,18,320/- alongwith 7% interest in favour of the claimants-respondents.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the accident in question did not occur with the vehicle belonging to the appellants. This was clearly pleaded in the written statement and even the driver of the vehicle deposed before the Court that no accident took place with his vehicle and despite no contradiction in his statement yet the version was disbelieved which is an error committed by the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the main basis upon which the Tribunal has delivered the award by relying upon the statement of two eye witnesses but they were known to the claimants and being interested witnesses their evidence could not be accepted with absolute credibility rather it should have been screened cautiously. It is thus submitted that the factum of accident itself was not proved and in the given facts and circumstances, the award fastening the liability on the appellants is erroneous and as such deserves to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, submits that the accident occurred with the vehicle belonging to the appellants. It was a day time accident and two eye witnesses were examined who clearly deposed that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. An FIR was promptly lodged and the vehicle as well as the driver was apprehended. Only upon an application moved by the appellants, the vehicle was released and the driver was enlarged on bail. The driver was also charge sheeted and in light of the corroborated documents and the testimony of the eye witnesses, it was clearly proved that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question belonging to the appellants which has been appropriately considered by the Tribunal and as such the award requires no interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. However, before dealing with the same ,it will be relevant to take a glace at few relevant facts.

7. A claim petition bearing No.38/70/2016 came to be filed by the claimants with the averments that on 05.01.2016 at around 2.30 P.M. while Rahul and the deceased Ram Mahipal were returning from Nawabganj Nandani, College and they had reached Wakeel Kunwa (Dumariya Deeh), the offending vehicle bearing No. U P 43/G-0118 which also had a blue beacon light was being driven rashly and negligently and hit a motorcycle from the back as a result both Rahul and Ram Mahipal sustained injuries. The people of the vicinity had taken them to the district hospital where Ram Mahipal died during his treatment.

8. The appellants contested the claim petition and denied the accident. It was stated that the accident must have occurred from some other vehicle; inasmuch as it is stated by the claimants that the alleged offending vehicle hit from back rather the vehicle being driven by the defendants was moving from Nawabganj to Gonda. It is also stated that no negligence was of the driver nor any accident took