Tribunal proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature, requiring proof by preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt; thus, discrepancies in testimony that do not touch the root of the accident should not justify the dismissal of a claim.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 15.01.2011 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), vide which the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant was dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.2.2010 at about 9.30 AM, deceased Ashu Sehrawat (26 years), working as Supervisor with M/s Dolphin Freight Movers Export Company and getting Rs. 4,500/- per month, along with the claimant was going on motorcycle No. HR-29U-1264. When he reached near Magpie on G.T. Road. Faridabad, in the meantime offending Tata-407 bearing registration No. HR-69-7446 driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and while trying to overtake the motorcycle of the deceased, had struck the truck with the motorcycle as a result of which the deceased and the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries including head injury, injury on his chest and fracture in his right leg. After the accident, respondent no 1 along with the offending vehicle ran away from the spot. In the meantime Anil Kumar ile respondent No. 4, who was going on his awn car No. DL-3CP-4363 towards Ballabgarh for his personal work, came at the spot and witnessed the accident and he shifted injured to Central Hospital, Faridabad but during treatment deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day in the hospital. Post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted in B.Κ. Hospital, Faridabad. FIR No. 100 dated 26.2.2010 was registered under Sections 279 and 304A IPC in the Police Station Central Faridabad.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HR-69-7446 by Hargobind, respondent no. 17 OPP.

2. If issue no. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation petitioners and proforma respondents no. 4 and 5 are entitled to and from whom? OPP and OPR.

3. Whether the respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and insured had also violated the other terms and conditions of the policy and as such respondent no. 3 is not liable to make payment of compensation, if any? OPR3.

4. Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the appellant. Hence the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition, ignoring material evidence on record. He further contends that the FIR, lodged promptly after the occurrence, specifically mentions the registration number of the offending vehicle, and that the challan was duly presented against driver of the offending vehicle upon completion of investigation. These circumstances, it is urged, clearly establish the involvement and negligence of the offending vehicle. He further contends that the compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–Insurance Company supports the impugned award and cont