The main 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 and the need for a sensitive approach to appreciate the hardship in tracing witnesses and collecting information for accidents.

JUDGMENT :

This is claimants’ Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Appellants have challenged the judgment & order dated 26.04.2012 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the Claim Petition filed by them, under Section 166 of the aforesaid Act, was dismissed.

2. The Claim Petition was filed by wife and two minor daughters of Prem Nath @ Prem Chand, who died in a road accident. It was stated that Prem Nath @ Prem Chand, while returning home with one Mr. Vinay @ Bhutul on a scooter, was hit by a truck, bearing registration no.HR-38-F-2163, on Nainital road near Britannia Factory, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Pant Nagar on 24.10.2005 at about 08:30 p.m. and, due to the impact of collusion, both persons sustained grievous injuries; Vinay @ Bhutal was taken to nearby Government Hospital, where doctors declared him brought dead; while, Prem Nath @ Prem Chand was taken to Sai Hospital, Moradabad for treatment however, during treatment, he succumbed to his injuries, on 27.10.2005. It was further stated in the Claim Petition that the accident was witnessed by Upendra & Babloo, who later gave information regarding the registration number of the offending truck to the family members, and the said information was passed on to the Police Station Pant Nagar on 27.10.2005; although, F.I.R. was registered on 25.10.2005. The Claim Petition was initially filed only against owner of Truck No. HR-38F-2163; besides, mother and father of the deceased Prem Nath @ Prem Chand. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. was permitted to be impleaded as respondent to the Claim Petition vide order dated 15.12.2007 and, by a subsequent order dated 14.05.2008, Driver of the truck was also permitted to be impleaded as respondent.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Based on the pleadings made by parties, 3 points for determination were framed by learned Tribunal:

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

(ii) Whether the Driver of the truck was having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident? If yes, then its effect”

(iii) Whether claimant’s are entitled to any compensation, If yes, then what amount and from which respondent?

6. Upendra, who allegedly witnessed the road accident, was examined as P.W.-2; while, Geeta Devi (widow of Prem Nath) was examined as P.W.-1. No witness was produced on behalf of the respondents. Learned Tribunal rejected the Claim Petition by holding that Truck No. HR-38F-2163 was not involved in the said accident and the claimants have setup a false case in collusion with the Driver of the truck. One of the reasons given for returning such finding is that since Upendra (P.W.-2), in his testimony, had stated that there was no light at the site of accident, therefore, he could not have seen the registration number of the offending truck. Another reason for disbelieving the factum of accident is that the registration number of the truck was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and the Investigating Officer had submitted Final/Closure Report, as the offending truck could not be identified. The third reason assigned for disbelieving the fact