Proof of negligence is essential for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act; failure to establish liability leads to denial of claims.

1. This appeal filed by the claimants / appellants (hereafter the appellants) is directed against an award passed on 8th November, 2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court, Purulia in M.A.C. Case No.128 of 2004 arising out of a claim application filed by them under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . The appellants are the wife, sons and daughter of deceased Kalipada Majhi. By filing the said application, they claimed compensation for a sum of Rs.3,76,500/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred) only, with 12% interest per annum together with cost of the case. In the said claim application it has been alleged that the deceased, who died as a result of a motor accident on 22nd July, 2003, was aged about 55 years having a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) only. According to the appellants, such accident occurred at a place on Purulia Bokaro Road, near Chas More.

2. It is the appellants' case that on 22nd July, 2003 when the deceased, his wife and their son, Sukhari Kumhar @ Majhi were proceeding to Purulia by bus bearing no.JH - 09A / 0242, he met an accident because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus. According to the appellants, the deceased, his wife and son wanted to sit inside the bus but at the insistence of the conductor, the deceased and his son were compelled to sit on the roof of the bus. While the bus was running at a high speed, deceased Kalipada sustained head injury with a bamboo fixed at the check post gate near Chas More. According to the appellants, Kalipada (since deceased) sustained severe injuries and was taken to Sadar Hospital, Purulia wherefrom he was shifted to Bokaro Hospital. But even after all possible treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 27th July, 2003. The bus was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited on the date of accident. Kalipada expired because of such accident and on the date of the accident he used to earn Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) only, per month. Based on such averment and the life expectancy of 20 years, the appellants claimed a sum of Rs.3,76,500/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred) only, towards compensation.

3. The claim application was contested by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited by filing written statement. In the written statement the Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurance Company') denied that any such accident took place and even if any such accident occurred, the Insurance Company is not liable but the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. It was further stated that the deceased Kalipada was guilty and responsible for the alleged accident. It has been stated that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation because if any such accident is proved, the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy including the Motor Vehicles Rules and accordingly, the said company prayed for dismissal of the claim application.

4. In order to prove the claim case, the appellant no.1 herself deposed before the Claims Tribunal as PW 1. Two other witnesses, a co - passenger, Prabir Majhi @ Kumhar deposed as PW 2 and Sukhari Kumhar @ Majhi, son of the deceased, deposed as PW 3.

5. PW 1 stated in her examination - in - chief that she, her husband (since deceased) and her son, PW 3 were going to Purulia by a Minibus bearing No.JH - 09A / 0242, named as Arjun Rath, from village Kumardaga to Purulia. She has stated that when her husband and he