The burden of proving rash and negligent driving was on the driver of the offending vehicle, and it was not necessary to prove rash and negligent driving under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by claimants against dismissal of their claim by the court of Mr. D. S. Jain, Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena in claim Case No. 26 of 1992.

( 2 ) CLAIMANTS filed a claim petition in the court claiming therein that a truck bearing registration No. MP 07-A 1978 driven by respondent No. 1 Murarilal on 16. 3. 1992 dashed against deceased Rajvansh singh at the A. B. Road Sales-Tax barrier, Morena. Accident occurred at 2. 15 p. m. Rajvansh Singh died on the spot after the accident. Appellant No. 1 is widow of the deceased and appellant No. 2 is minor son of the deceased. The truck was owned by respondent No. 2 Harish Babu and was insured with the respondent No. 3 New india Assurance Co. Ltd. The deceased was truck driver. On 16. 3. 1992 while in service deceased was driving truck bearing registration No. DL-1g 4508, which was travelling from Agra to Nagpur. When his vehicle reached Sales-Tax Barrier near morena, he stopped the vehicle and parked it by the side of the road and had his meals. After having his meals when he was proceeding towards his truck the offending truck dashed against him, which was coming from the side of Gwalior. The truck was driven by the respondent No. 1 murarilal in a rash and negligent manner. On account of accident the deceased was crushed under the truck and died on the spot. After accident F. I. R. was lodged with the Civil Lines Police Station, Morena. The claimants have filed a petition for compensation.

( 3 ) IN reply to claim application, driver of the vehicle denied that the vehicle was driven by him in a rash and negligent manner. On the contrary he has deposed that he was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. MP 07-A 1978 on his left side in a slow speed and very cautiously. He was blowing horn and headlights of the truck were on. He was driving from morena towards Agra. While he was near the Sales-Tax Barrier, deceased suddenly crossed the road which resulted into an accident. Accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased.

( 4 ) THE owner of the vehicle has filed his separate written statement and has admitted in his reply that deceased died on account of accident from the offending vehicle driven by respondent No. 1 and he has also pleaded that the deceased himself dashed against the truck. Thus, owner and driver both have admitted that the deceased died on account of accident from the truck which was driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2.

( 5 ) FROM the pleadings, it is apparent that there was no dispute that the truck bearing registration No. MP 07-A 1978 was not involved in the accident as the driver and owner of the vehicle have admitted that deceased died from the accident arose by the said truck.

( 6 ) COUNSEL for the appellants submitted that no issue was framed by the Claims tribunal that the accident has not been caused by the truck driven by respondent no. 1 and owned by the respondent No. 2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the truck was not involved in the accident and the claimants have failed to prove that the truck bearing registration no. MP 07-A 1978 was involved in the accident, is contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record. He submitted that once the driver has admitted that accident is caused by the said truck and the truck was driven by him, burden was on driver to prove that there was no negligence on the part of driver. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Claims tribunal has committed an error in holding that the burden to prove rash and negligent driving was upon the claimants and non-examination of eyewitnesses is fatal to the claim. He submitted that Claims Tribunal has decided the petition for compensation requiring the claimants to prove strictly the factum of accident beyond reasonable doubt like criminal cases. The counsel for the appellants further submitted that the findings rec