The burden of proof lies upon the claimant to establish negligence and vehicle involvement, which was not satisfactorily met in this case.

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants, seeking setting aside of the impugned Award dated 30.04.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.25,000/- while rendering a finding of hit and run case; whereas the appellants-claimants are entitled to a just compensation on account of death of deceased-Ramesh.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 05.07.1998 at about 7:00 P.M., the deceased namely Ramesh was going from Village Jorasi Khalsa towards Panipat via Samalkha on his scooter bearing registration No.HNK-7924. A car bearing registration No.HR-06C-0787 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), being driven by respondent No.1, Ranbir Singh, at a very high speed, rashly and negligently, came from behind and struck against the scooter of deceased. As a result of the impact, deceased fell on the road and the offending vehicle ran over him. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot. The deceased was thereafter taken to the Civil Hospital, Panipat, where his post-mortem examination was conducted on 06.07.1998. The accident in question was, thus, stated to have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, Ranbir Singh. Consequently, the claimants being the wife and children of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of the deceased. On 30.04.2002, vide the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants-claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 being a hit and run case. Being dissatisfied, the claimants are before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that Tribunal, has erred in law and on facts in holding that car bearing No.HR-06C-0787 was not involved in the accident and in awarding a meagre sum of Rs.25,000/- by treating the case as one of “hit and run.” It is submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal qua involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident is perverse and beyond pleadings. It is urged that the deceased Ramesh died in a motor vehicular accident on 05.07.1998 and though the FIR did not mention the registration number of the car, the same was duly established during investigation and a criminal case was registered against the driver for rash and negligent driving. The Investigating Officer, ASI Rai Kumar, and eye-witness Dharambir Singh, Ex- Sarpanch, categorically deposed that the car in question caused the accident, which was also admitted in the joint written statement filed by the driver and owner of the car. Despite this, the learned Tribunal wrongly relied on the testimony of RW-2, an employee of the Insurance Company, and on an uncorroborated investigator’s report to disbelieve the case of the claimants. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned award dated 30.04.2002, being based on mis-appreciation of evidence, deserves to be set aside and compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with all consequential benefits be awarded to the appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the insurance company contends that after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award, which does not require any interference in the present appeal.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the paper book with their able assistance, this Court is of the considered view that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants do not merit acceptance and finds no infirmity in