A claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act necessitates proof of negligence, which may be established using the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur when direct evidence is lacking.

1. The present first appeal from order has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 26.7.2011, whereby the claim petition of the claimants - appellants has been rejected.

2. Rani, wife of Ram Kumar and her husband Ram Kumar, son of Lahori, are the appellants before this court, who lost their only child, namely, Mamta, aged about 8 years on 4.3.2010. The claimants - appellants are residents of village Purebeju, Majra Chanda Balipur, Police Station Nazirabad, District Raebareilly. Ram Kumar, claimant - appellant No. 2, had gone to his in - laws place and was returning along with his wife and daughter on 4.3.2010, and while they were at Purepandey Chauraha on Parsadepur Marg, a Bolero jeep bearing registration No. UP 33 - M 6991, coming from Raebareilly side dashed / hit the claimants - appellants' daughter, who was standing on left roadside at 4.15 p.m., on account of rash and negligent driving, as a result of which she sustained serious injuries and died instantaneously. The vehicle and its driver were caught at the spot and a timely first information report was lodged at 4.45 p.m. on 4.3.2010 being Case Crime No. 82 of 2010 under S.279, S.304 - A, Indian Penal Code , in which post - mortem examination was also conducted. After concluding the investigation, a charge - sheet has been filed under S.279 and S.304 - A, Indian Penal Code . The claimants - appellants, therefore, filed the claim petition for payment of compensation on the ground that the deceased was only child and the appellants' life had been ruined due to losing of their only hope, who could otherwise have taken care of the claimants - appellants in their old age. Amount of compensation under different heads were claimed, amounting in all to Rs. 10,25,000.

3. Admittedly, the vehicle was insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., which appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written objection. It was claimed that the vehicle was being run through a driver who had no driving licence nor any route permit was available and, therefore, the insurance company claimed that it was not liable to pay any compensation by virtue of S.3 of the Motor Vehicles Act . It also claimed that the driver of the vehicle was drunk and, therefore, the provisions of the policy have been breached. Various other defences were also taken.

4. Pawan Kumar Yadav, the defendant - respondent No. 1, who was the driver and owner of the vehicle did not appear before the court below despite receipt of notice and the proceedings were conducted ex parte as against him by the Tribunal.

5. On behalf of the appellants, oral and documentary evidence was led to prove their case. Copy of the F.I.R., post - mortem report, charge - sheet along with registration certificate and driving licence, etc. were filed before the Tribunal. The claimants also led oral evidence of Ram Kumar, appellant No. 2 and statement of Mohan Lal, PW 2. Both of them have been cross - examined. No oral evidence was led on behalf of the insurance company. The insurance company, however, brought on record a certificate to prove that the driving licence of Pawan Kumar Yadav was forged and actually no driving licence was issued to him and, therefore, the vehicle was being driven without a valid driving licence, which amounted to breach of the terms of the policy.

6. The Tribunal framed four issues. The first issue was “as to whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, which led to serious injuries and death being caused to 8 - year - old girl?” The Tribunal on this issue came to the co