JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 19.04.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (North), Lucknow in Claim Petition No.413/2011, whereby in a death case a sum of Rs.6,37,000/- along with 7% interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the impugned award and has been vehemently urged that the application for compensation was filed under section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 wherein it was sina-qua-non for the claimants to have proved the factum of the negligence and without proving the same, no award could be made. In the given circumstances, where the deceased is said to have been a pillion rider of a motorcycle and admittedly the motorcycle had slipped wherein the deceased received injuries and died at the spot, accordingly, it cannot be said there was any negligence. There is no intervention of any second vehicle and thus it is not a case under section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is no person who has seen the occurrence. PW-1, the wife of the deceased, admittedly had not seen the accident whereas the PW-2, who is said to be an eye witness is a relative and apparently interested witness and whose testimony could not have been relied.

5. It is also urged that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess any licence and for the said reason no liability could have been awarded against the Insurance Company and for all the aforesaid reasons the award is bad and liable to be set aside.

6. The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the material on record.

7. Apparently, it transpires that on 22.06.2010, Munni Lal was riding along with Awadhesh alias Yogesh on his motorcycle bearing UP-32-CD- 1082. At around 09:00 PM while they were returning home near Village Kushmaura turn, the rider of the motorcycle namely Awadhesh alias Yogesh on account of rashness and negligence could not control the motorcycle which slipped, as a result, the pillion rider namely Munni Lal sustained grievous injuries from where he was referred to the Trauma Centre at Lucknow and during his treatment he succumbed to his injuries.

8. It is on account of the aforesaid that claim petition bearing No.413/2011 came to be filed before the Tribunal. The matter was contested and upon exchange of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed 11 issues.

9. While dealing with the issue of negligence, it was found that there is a clear statement that the rider of the motorcycle at the turn could not control the vehicle on account of rashness which led to slipping of the motorcycle and the pillion rider sustained injuries which ultimately led to his death.

10. It will also relevant to point out that though PW-1 who is the wife of the deceased, apparently was not an eye witness as she narrated the facts in the manner in which the accident occurred. What is significant to note is PW-2 namely Ram Vilas was an eye witness. Even though he admitted that he was distantly related to the deceased but that in itself is neither sufficient to efface the effectiveness of the testimony of the witness.

11. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW-2 was cross-examined and even in his cross-examinat