The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the standard of proof in Motor Accident Claims cases, emphasizing the preponderance of probabilities over beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

This is claimants’ Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment & order dated 26.04.2012 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in MACP Case No. 38 of 2007. By the said judgment, petition filed by appellant, under Section 166 of the aforesaid Act, was dismissed.

2. The Claim Petition was filed by wife, four minor children and mother of Mr. Vinay @ Bhutal, who died in a road accident. It was stated that while returning home with one Mr. Prem Nath @ Prem Chand on a scooter, Mr. Vinay @ Bhutal was hit by a truck, bearing registration no. HR-38F-2163, on Nainital road, near Britannia Factory, within the jurisdiction of Pant Nagar Police Station and due to the impact of collusion, both persons riding the scooter sustained grievous injuries, which resulted in their death. It was stated that the accident was witnessed by Upendra & Babloo; although FIR was lodged on 25.10.2005, however, information regarding registration number of truck was given separately on 27.10.2005, when the eyewitness to the accident informed the family members about the same.

3. The claim petition was initially filed on 31.01.2007 only against owner of the truck, while insurer and driver of the truck were permitted to be impleaded as respondent nos. 2 & 3 vide orders dated 15.12.2007 and 14.05.2008, respectively.

4. The owner of Truck No. HR-38F-2163 vaguely denied the factum of accident and stated that Driver of the truck was not negligent and further that the Driver never informed about the accident to owner of the truck. The insurer of the truck took usual defense in its written statement and did not specifically deny the factum of accident.

5. The Driver of Truck No. HR-38F-2163 admitted that the scooter, on which the deceased was riding, collided with his truck, while he was going from Rudrapur to Haldwani at about 08:30 p.m., on 24.10.2005. However, the Driver stated that he was carefully driving the truck and it was the Driver of the scooter, who was responsible for head on collision between the scooter and the truck.

6. Based on the pleadings made by parties, 6 points for determination were framed by learned Tribunal, which are as follows:

(i) Whether on 24.10.2005 at about 8:30 p.m. the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Truck No. HR-38F-2163, which resulted in death of Mr. Vinay @ Bhutal? If yes, then its effect?

(ii) Whether the accident, as aforesaid, occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the scooter, which resulted in death of Mr. Vinay @ Bhutal? If yes, then its effect?

(iii) Whether the driver of the truck and scooter were having valid driving license on the date of accident? If yes, then its effect?

(iv) Whether the truck was not insured on the date of accident? If yes, then its effect?

(v) Whether the owner and insurer of the scooter are necessary parties to the claim petition? If yes, then its effect?

(vi) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If yes, then what amount and from which of the respondent?

7. Upendra, who allegedly witnessed the road accident, was examined as P.W.-2; while, widow of the deceased (Smt. Sarda Devi) was examined as P.W.-1. No witness was produced on behalf of the respondents.

8. Learned Tribunal rejected the Claim Petition by holding that Truck No. HR-38F-2163 was not involved in the accident and further that the claimants have setup a false case in collusion with the Driver of the truck. The reason assigned for disbelieving the testimony of eyewitness is that he could not recollect the registration number of the ill-fated scooter, therefore, his testimony, regarding registration number of the truck, cannot be believed. It is further held that the truck number was not mentioned in the F.I.R. registered on 25.10.2005, which led to filing of closure report by the Investigating Officer. The stand taken by owner of the truck in his written statement that he was not informed about the accident by his driver was a