In a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the burden lies on the claimants to establish the factum of the accident, the involvement of the offending vehicle, and the negligence of the driver on a preponderance of probabilities.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.(ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the award dated 26.07.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant for grant of compensation on account of death of Sanjay suffered in a motor vehicle accident on 10.07.2004 came to be dismissed.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.07.2004, Sanjay (since deceased) was driving a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HR-38-GT-5639 towards Faridabad. It is the case of the appellants that the said vehicle was hit from behind by Tata 407 bearing registration No. HR-47-A-5091, which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, Anil Kumar. Owing to the said impact, the Tata Sumo is stated to have rammed into a three-wheeler moving ahead, as a result of which both vehicles overturned. Sanjay sustained fatal injuries in the accident and died at the spot. Consequently, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, seeking compensation on account of the death of Sanjay in the aforesaid accident.

3. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal held that although the claimants had successfully established their status as the legal representatives and dependents of the deceased Sanjay, they failed to prove that occurrence was result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, namely Tata 407 bearing registration No. HR-47-A-5091. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the testimonies of the purported eye-witnesses, Raghbir Singh (PW-2) and Sajjan Singh (PW-4), holding them to be interested and unreliable. Further, Raghbir Singh (PW-2) admitted during cross-examination that he was not an eye-witness to the accident, while Sajjan Singh’s (PW-4) version was found to be uncorroborated and improbable, particularly in the absence of any plausible explanation for his failure to approach the police promptly, despite his assertion that his statement was recorded at a later stage. Further, the learned Tribunal noticed that the earliest version reflected in the FIR (Ex. P-1) did not disclose the particulars of any offending vehicle. The police investigation culminated in an untraced report, duly proved by Head Constable Daya Nand (RW-1). In these circumstances, the subsequent introduction of the Tata 407 bearing registration No. HR-47-A-5091 was held to be an afterthought. Further, in the absence of reliable and independent evidence connecting the death of the deceased with the alleged Tata 407 or establishing rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, the learned Tribunal held that the claimants failed to prove the foundational facts of the case and consequently dismissed the claim petition.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned award as being contrary to law and is based upon misappreciation of the evidence on record. It was contended that the learned Tribunal erred in disbelieving the testimonies of PW-2 (Raghbir Singh) and PW-4 (Sajjan Singh), who were projected as material witnesses to the accident, on the basis of alleged minor contradictions and their interested status, while overlooking the fact that their versions were consistent and stood corroborated by the registration of the FIR, as also by the benevolent object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It wa