A finding of negligence must be substantiated by evidence; the burden remains on the parties contesting liability.

JUDGMENT

Saral Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 05.12.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'tribunal') in MAC No.196 of 1992, whereby the the tribunal has rejected the claim petition instituted by claimant/appellant.

3. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the finding of the tribunal that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of claimant/appellant is perverse and against the record. It is submitted that the claimant/appellant was driving a maruti car No.UGR/6031 which met with an accident with offending truck No.MKW/9594. It is submitted that it was a specific case of the claimant/appellant that both the vehicles were coming from opposite direction and due to sole negligence of driver of truck, the maruti car rammed into rear wheel of the truck and the claimant/appellant suffered grievous injuries in the said accident. It is submitted that the claimant/appellant proved the accident by producing himself as PW 1 and PW 2 who was also travelling in the maruti car and was an eye witness of the accident. It is submitted that the testimony of PW 1 as well as PW 2 was also supported by site plan of the accident and further, the Police has filed charge-sheet against the driver of offending truck. Accordingly, it is submitted that the tribunal on its own without there being any evidence on record held that the manner in which the accident had taken place reveals that the maruti car was behind the truck and it rammed into rear wheel of the truck from behind and therefore, the accident was result of sole negligence of driver of truck. Accordingly, it is submitted that the tribunal has erred in law in rejecting the claim petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the manner in which the accident had taken place reveals that the maruti car was behind the truck and it dashed the truck from behind. It is submitted that in such view of the fact, the finding of the tribunal that the accident had taken place due to negligence of claimant/appellant is correct and based upon proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record and thus, being a finding of fact, is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. It is further submitted that as the tribunal has held that the accident was result of sole negligence of claimant/appellant and the claim petition has been instituted under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , therefore, the tribunal has rightly held that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the original records.

6. The case of the claimant/appellant was that the maruti car was going from north-south and the offending truck was coming from south-north and as the driver of truck lost control over the truck due to which the truck hit the maruti car and on account of impact of truck, the maruti car rammed into rear wheel of the truck. The claimant/appellant proved the negligence of driver of truck by producing himself as PW 1 and also PW 2 who was also travelling in the car with the claimant/appellant. The insurance company did not lead any evidence to rebut the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2. The F.I.R. has also been filed against the driver of offending truck and the Police also filed charge-sheet against the driver of truck. In such view of the fact, the un-rebutted