The insurance company's liability is upheld despite the absence of direct eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the importance of unchallenged claimant evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. This judgment sha ll decide the present appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , [MV Act] assailing the impugned order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, [Tribunal], in petition No.314/09 (New No.500440-16), whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation in favour of the claimants.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stated, it was the case of the claimants that on 29.06.2005, at about 10 P.M., Sh. Bhagwat Singh aged 41 years (hereinafter referred to as the „deceased‟) was standing at a bus stop at Page 1 of 11 Azadpur Flyover, Delhi, when suddenly one a Motorcycle CBZ Hero Honda,⁴ bearing registration No. UP-27F-7426 (hereinafter referred to as the „offending vehicle‟) came at a high speed, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit Bhagwat Singh/deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries.

-

3. It was further mentioned in the claim petition that thereafter, one Sh. Piyush Gupta/driver⁵-cum-registered owner⁶/respondent No.1 along with one of his associates, took the deceased away from the place of accident on the pretext that they were taking him to the hospital but instead, they left him in pain at Satyawati College Flyover, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, and fled away with the offending vehicle. Thereafter, the deceased was admitted to BJRM hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi and from there, he was shifted to a Trauma Centre where he remained admitted till 06.07.2005 and subsequently, died on 06.07.2005 at about 1 P.M. An FIR No.439/05 under Section 279 /337/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 , [ IPC ] was registered at PS Ashok Vihar on 06.07.2005.

4. The respondent No.1, who was the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle, filed his written statements before the learned3 Claim petition registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or anagreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;

Page 2 of 11 Tribunal wherein, he stated that he had already been discharged from the present case by the learned Tribunal due to lack of evidence and no accident was caused by him and he had been falsely implicated in the present case. Per Contra, the respondent No.3/National Insurance Co. Ltd. acknowledged that the offending vehicle was insured with the company vide policy No. 462000/31/04/6200012567, which was valid from 07.01.2005 to 06.01.2006, covering the date of the accident and the policy was in the name of Piyush Gupta/respondent No.1 but denied that any accident was caused involving the insured motorcycle.

5. Based on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

-

“(1) Whether on 29.06.2005 at about 10:00 pm at bus stop Azadpur, Delhi, vehicle no. UP-27F-7426 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the deceased and caused his death? OPP

(2). Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ?OPP

(3). Relief.”

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IMPUGNED AWARD:

6. During the course of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner/Hema Devi was examined as PW1 and deposed about all the relevant documents including the original death certificate (Ex.PW1/2), Election card (Ex.PW1/3), copy of the FIR and other documents. Further, she stated that the deceased was indeed hit by the offending vehicle driven