The court emphasized that the absence of an FIR or initial statements blaming no one does not negate the possibility of negligence; the inference of negligence must be drawn from the circumstances of the accident.

1. This common judgment shall decide the above-noted three appeals preferred by the appellants/claimants assailing the impugned common judgment-cum-award dated 13.05.2014 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-02, Patiala House Court, New Delhi1, whereby, the claim petitions filed by each of the appellants/claimants under Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 19882 was dismissed primarily on the ground that they have failed to prove any rash and negligent driving or tortious culpability on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Each of the appeal raise common questions of law and facts insofar as the issue of tortious culpability is concerned, and thus, the appeal can be conveniently disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of decision on the issue of „tortious culpability‟, MAC.APP. 488/2015 shall be the lead case.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the appellants viz. Sandeep Mittal, his wife Pratibha and their daughter Baby Anusha Mittal were travelling in car bearing registration No. DL-3CZ-39203 on 21.06.2006, claimed to have been owned by respondent No.2 i.e., the owner of the appellant/Sandeep Mittal and being driven by respondent No.1/Suraj Prakash. As they were going from Hissar to Narwana near 1Tribunal 2M.V. Act 3Offending vehicle Ashish Agro Oil Extracts, Hissar Road, Uklanaat, at about 6.00 AM, a stray animal i.e., a Neel cow suddenly came in front of the speeding vehicle all out of nowhere and rammed into the car as a result of which, the vehicle went out of control and went below the road striking and crashing against the babool and suranam trees and subsequently falling into the ditch. Resultantly, each of the appellants sustained grievous injuries over their bodies inevitably requiring medical treatment.

3. Each of the appellants instituted a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident in terms of Section 166 read with Section 140 of M.V.Act. Respondent No.1/driver and respondent No.2/owner, despite service of summons of the claim petitions, did not prefer to contest the same and were proceeded ex-parte by the learned Tribunal.

4. Although respondent No.3/insurance company acknowledged that the offending vehicle was insured with them for third party risks, it took preliminary objections to the effect that the claimants have not approached the Court with clean hands and they have concocted the entire version of the incident in collusion with respondent No.1; and rather it was alleged that it was Sandeep Mittal who was driving the vehicle of his employer‟s company and thus, he was not a third party so as to get entitled to be indemnified. It was also pointed out that no FIR4 with regard to the incident was lodged nor any inquiry or investigation was conducted so as to show how and in what manner the accident had occurred; and that rather the appellant/claimant 4First Information Report Sandeep Mittal stated to the police that nobody was responsible for causing the accident. It was stated that it was the injured persons who have later improved upon their version of the accident in the claim petition thereby, seeking high and exorbitant compensation without any foundation.

5. The learned Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues for consideration vide order dated

19.09.2011 :

1. Whether the petitioner sustained Injuries in the accident which occurred on 21.06.2006 at about 6:00 AM near Ashish Agro Oil Extracts, Hisar Road, Uklana, Haryana, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicleNo.DL-3CZ- 3920 by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No. 2 and Insured with respondent No. 3?OPP

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. Relief.

6. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant/Sandeep Mittal in his claim petition bearing suit No.129/2014, examined himself as PW- 1 besides other witnesses. For the purpose