The court established that eyewitness testimony is crucial in determining negligence in motor vehicle accidents, overriding the Tribunal's erroneous conclusions.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , has arisen out of the order dated 24.12.2016 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No.52/2015 whereby the claim application preferred by the claimants has been rejected.

2. The claim of the appellant/claimants, in brief, is that on 29/04/2015, 40-year-old Jeevrakhan Nishad was travelling from village Kurud to village Bhatapara Banjari in a Tata Magic bearing registration No. CG 04 HM 4588 (hereinafter referred to as " the offending vehicle"), which was being driven by respondent No.1 Ramesh Sahu. At around 8:20 pm, Ramesh Sahu drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which it collided with the rear part of an unknown truck and got damaged. Jeevrakhan and driver Ramesh Sahu also got stuck in it. On receiving information, the Police reached the spot. Both of them were taken out of the vehicle and with the help of 108 ambulance, they were taken to the Community Health Centre, Kurud, where after first aid, Jeevrakhan was referred to Raipur. But while being taken to Raipur, he died on the way. Merg was recorded on the information of Manohar Lal Dewangan. Crime No. 224/2014 was registered at Police Station, Kurud and the offending vehicle along with documents were seized. It was claimed that due to the death of 40-year-old Jeevrakhan in the accident, the appellants, who are the wife, children and father of the deceased, have become destitute. Jeevrakhan used to earn Rs.200/- per day by farming and labour work, of which the appellants have been deprived. Therefore, they filed an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs 10,30,000/- under various heads.

3. Respondents No. 1 and 2, who are said to be the driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle respectively, submitted their reply denying the allegations made in the claim application and stating that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not respondent No.1 Ramesh but Rajesh Kumar son of Khedu Lal. In relation to the said accident, a crime was registered by the Police against an unknown truck driver but the truck could not be traced. Hence, the Police closed case No.29/2014. Respondent No.1 Ramesh Sahu himself is the aggrieved party. According to the seizure made by the Police, the driving license of driver Rajesh Kumar has been seized. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the unknown truck driver against whom no claim has been filed. The driver of the offending vehicle was Rajesh who was a valid license holder and the offending vehicle was insured by respondent No.3. Therefore, respondent No.3 insurance company is responsible for it and the claim application filed against them should be rejected.

4. Respondent No.3 insurance company submitted its reply denying the allegations made in the claim application and stating that no accident was caused by the alleged offending vehicle. There was no negligence on the part of its driver. Despite repeated demands, the owner of the offending vehicle has not presented any valid documents. The offending vehicle was being driven in the absence of valid registration, permit and fitness. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable for any compensation. Hence, the claim application against the Insurance Company should be rejected.

5. In the case, Smt. Jhariyarin (AW-1) W/o deceased Jeevrakhan and spot/eye witness Chaituram Nishad (AW-2) were examined from the claimants side. Ramesh Sahu (R-1) was examined from the driver and owner side whereas, no witness was examined on behalf of the respondent No.3 insurance company.

6. Learned Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, on the basis of their pleadings and evidence, reached to the conclusion that the claimants party has failed to prove that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, Ramesh Sahu