A claim for motor accident compensation will be dismissed if the evidence of eyewitnesses is found to be unreliable, vague, or procured, particularly where there are unexplained delays in reporting to police and contradictions between pleadings and testimony.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants laying challenge to the Award dated 21.04.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short “the learned Tribunal”) whereby MACT Case No.160 dated 22.11.2003 filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has been dismissed. Four claimants are the 26-year-old widow, 3½-year old son, 2-year-old daughter and 8-year-old brother of deceased Vinod Kumar, who was 28 years old at the time of accident.

2. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased, Vinod kumar, had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that had taken place on 31.08.2003 at about 12.30 PM due to the rash and negligent driving of Maruti van bearing registration No.HR-01-6057 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. However, the learned Tribunal upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that the claimants had failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and “……that the same was falsely implicated in this case after due deliberations on the next day of the accident just to claim compensation from the Insurance Company as the van was insured.” Consequently, the claim petition came to be dismissed.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal was in error in dismissing the claim petition of the appellants as it failed to appreciate that the appellants have duly proved the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1 by examining eyewitness Surinder Singh as PW-4, who had deposed that “……on 31.8.2003 when he was going to his village after purchasing pesticides from Ugla, another motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-01L-7076 was going ahead of his motorcycle which was also being driven on correct left hand side of the road and at a moderate speed. He further deposed that at about 12.00 or 12.30 noon he reached near a hospital when a buffalo was seen coming running from their right hand side from the fields. He further deposed that speed of the motorcycle going ahead of him was slowed down by its driver and that he also slowed down speed of his motorcycle on seeing the buffalo. He again deposed that in the meantime a Maruti van No. HR01-6057 came from the backside which was being driven in a very rash, and negligent manner. He again deposed that driver of the van inspite of seeing the buffalo coming on the roadside did not slow down speed of the van and rather he increased the speed of the van and when the buffalo came on the road, he diverted his van towards left side and the van hit against the motorcycle No. HR-01L-7076. He further deposed that as a result of the impact motorcyclist fell on the roadside alongwith the motorcycle. He again deposed that however the driver of the van stopped his van after covering some distance and that he also reached near the van but van driver again accelerated speed of his van and ran away. PW4 Surinder Singh further said that he had disclosed the number of the Marut