In motor accident claim petitions, the claimant bears the burden of proving the involvement of the specific offending vehicle. Where evidence is contradictory, lacks credibility, or suggests collusion between parties, the claim is rightly dismissed, and appellate courts will not interfere with such factual findings.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants laying challenge to the Award dated 05.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short “the learned Tribunal”) whereby MACT Case No.41 dated 25.07.2012 filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has been dismissed. 5 claimants are the 45-year-old widow, 23-year-old son, 21-year-old son, 19-year-old daughter, and 68-year-old mother of deceased Sanjeev Gupta.

2. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that had taken place on 08.02.2011 at about 11.00 PM due to the rash and negligent driving of canter bearing registration No.HR-68-9999 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being owned and driven by respondent No.1, and insured by respondent No.2. 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 dated 08.02.2011, holding the same to be a hit and run case. The Tribunal had further concluded that there appears to be collusion between the claimants’ family and respondent No.1. Consequently, the claim petition came to be dismissed.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned Tribunal was in error in dismissing the claim petition as the Tribunal failed to appreciate that FIR No.24, dated 09.02.2011, under Sections 279, 304A IPC had been registered against respondent No.1 at Police Station Chandi Mandir, for which he is facing trial, which prima facie proves that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident and that respondent No.1 was negligent in driving the said vehicle. However, learned Tribunal had tried the claim petition as a criminal trial and not as a proceeding under the beneficial provisions of the Act. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there is no link evidence, and no proper investigation was done by the police officers. Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that in a proceeding under the Act, a summary trial is to be conducted wherein and not like a criminal case, wherein the Tribunal is to prima facie see whether the vehicle in question was involved in the accident.

4. Moreover, involvement of the vehicle and the accident stood duly proved from the evidence of eyewitness PW-5 Jag Bhushan, who is also the author of the FIR No.24 dated 09.02.2011. Learned counsel refers to the deposition of PW-5 eyewitness to submit Jag Bhushan has categorically stated that the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle at a fast speed without blowing any horn in a rash and negligent manner, and had hit the offending canter against the deceased Sanjiv Kumar Gupta, due to which Sanjiv Kumar Gupta fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries, which led to his death. It is contented that therefore involvement, as well as rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1 stood duly proved from the evidence of eyewitness PW-5.

5. Moreover, learned Tribunal has also ignored evidence of PW-8 Rajiv Gupta, who has categorically stated that the accident took place with the canter. PW-8 has also deposed that respondent No.1 was not previously known to him; and has further stated that when no action was taken by the police on the FIR then he