In a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants must establish the involvement of the offending vehicle and the negligence of the driver as a prerequisite for awarding compensation.

Judgment On Board

1) The claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 320/2019 dated 14.2.2024 whereby learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.

2) Facts of the present case are that on 23.1.2018, Mokimuddin was returning from Bilaspur to Village Khamhariya on motorcycle. At about 8:00 pm when he reached Unique Rice Mill, the offending vehicle – Trailer bearing registration No. CG-12-S-5537 being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed the said motorcycle. In the accident, Mokimuddin sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. Claimants, who are the widow, minor son, parents and siblings of deceased moved claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 87,00,000/-. They pleaded that deceased was aged 22 years and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per-month working at Luthra Sharif General Store. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that claimants failed to prove that offending vehicle – Trailer was involved in the accident which took the life of deceased.

3) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that offending vehicle – Trailer was involved in the accident and owner of Trailer and Insurance Company were impleaded as respondents but learned Tribunal only on the basis of conjectures and surmises dismissed the claim petition. He further submits that sufficient evidence was adduced by claimants to establish that Trailer was involved in accident. He prays to set aside the award impugned.

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He submits that involvement of motor vehicle is prerequisite for filing claim petition and claimants failed to establish that offending vehicle – Trailer was involved in the accident by leading cogent evidence. He further submits that complaint was made by father of deceased before Superintendent of Police ; inquiry was conducted and closure report (Ex. D/1) was filed. He contends that Mohd. Riyaz, the eye-witness has also not supported the case of claimants. He further contends that this appeal deserved to be dismissed.

5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

6) Perusal of record would show that merg intimation was registered on 23.1.2018 at 22:00 hrs and FIR was registered against unknown vehicle on the same date. Subsequently, a complaint was made by the father of deceased before Superintendent of Police on 10.4.2018 to the effect that driver of Trailer while driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of deceased and incident was witnessed by Mohd. Riyaz. After completion of investigation, police filed closure report.

7) Shabina Begum (AW/1) in evidence stated that on 23.1.2018, motorcycle of deceased was dashed by Trailer. She stated that deceased was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. In cross-examination, she stated that she has no knowledge about registration number and color of offending vehicle. In para-16, she admitted that no report was lodged against offending vehicle – Trailer and no criminal case was registered against its driver. Mohd. Riyaz (AW/2) was the eye-witness to the accident. On affidavit he stated that Tra