The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle, which was not satisfied in this case, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by claimant-appellant being aggrieved by judgment dated 06.03.2002 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') vide which petition of claimant-appellant was dismissed finding no merit in the same.

2. Today, the case was fixed for arguments. The accident had taken place in present case on 21.09.2000 and matter is pending since 2002. Today, in the morning session pass over was sought by proxy counsel, however, when the case was taken up again proxy counsel requested for adjournment. I do not find any reasons to adjourn the case.

3. Claimant-appellant had filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident which had occurred on 21.09.2000. It was the case of claimant that on 21.09.2000 at about 08:00 a.m., he along with one Ashok Kumar was going to Bahadurgarh from village Chhochhi on a scooter bearing registration No.HR 2102. The scooter was being driven by Ashok Kumar and injured claimant was pillion rider. When they reached at distance of two kms. from Kultana towards Sampla a new red colour tractor Mahindra make 265-D1, engine and chasis No. HDB-1237, being driven rashly and negligently came from fields and hit their scooter, resulting in multiple injuries to claimant. While Ashok Kumar, his uncle, took care of claimant- petitioner, the tractor driver succeeded in fleeing away from the spot. It is his case that he remained under treatment till 14.11.2000 and had already spent Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical expenses. Accordingly, claimant had sought compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 totally denied his involvement or that of the tractor. Respondent No.2 stated that the tractor was standing in the showroom. It was never sold and had never come to the road. Therefore, there was no reason for such involvement in question. In other words, owner had also denied accident in totality.

5. The learned Tribunal after considering respective contentions of parties had decided the claim petition against the claimant noting case of claimant regarding involvement of offending vehicle and that of respondent No.1. The relevant paragraph of Tribunal's judgment dealing with issue regarding rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 are reproduced as under:-

"11. The point in issue in the present case is as to whether Dhrambir alias Biray, respondent No.1 was driving the tractor in question and caused this accident by his rash and negligent act. Evidence was produced by the petitioner but they could not prove it. Even, it is not established that the tractor in question was purchased by Dhrambir, he was in he employment of respondent No.2 at the material time and was driving it or it was sold to anybody on or before the date, the alleged mishap took place?

To prove its case, petitioner examined Ashok Kumar, lodger of the first information report, a copy of which is (Ex.PX/1). He appearing as (PW1) stated that on 21.02.2000 around 08:00 A.M. he along with Zora Sngh, his nephew were on the way to Bahadurgarh from village Chhochhi on a scooter. He was driving it. Zora Singh was on its pillion. When they reached near village Kultana, a tractor red colour, without number plate, Mahendra make D1-265 came from the fields being driven rashly, negligently and hit the scooter. They both fell down and suffered the injuries on their person. Dharambir alias Biray, on inhabitant of village Ismaila was on the wheels of the tractor. He was taking care of Zora Singh, his nephew, that tractor driver fled away on it. He took Zora Singh to P.H