When evidence presented in motor accident claims is rendered unreliable due to witnesses providing diametrically opposite, contradictory statements under oath in criminal proceedings, such testimony is unworthy of acceptance, and the subsequent dismissal of the claim petition to prevent perjury and collusion is justified.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants laying challenge to the Award dated 04.02.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short “the learned Tribunal”); whereby Claim Petition No. 364 dated 11.07.2018 filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been dismissed. The 4 claimants are the 33-year-old widow; 12-year-old son; 11-year-old daughter; and 77-year-old mother of the deceased Om Parkash, who was 38 years old at the time of accident.

2. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that deceased Om Parkash had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 10.06.2018 at about 03:00 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of a Car bearing registration No. HR21M/4928 (hereinafter referred to as “the alleged offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. However, the ld. Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the appellants “have failed to prove that car bearing Registration No. HR21M/4928 was involved in the accident in question and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of car by the respondent No.1. Therefore, this issue is decided against the petitioners.” Accordingly, issue No.1 was decided against the appellants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal was in error in holding as above as the appellants had produced cogent evidence to prove that the deceased had died due to injuries suffered by him in accident dated 10.06.2018 which had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by respondent no.1. However, the Tribunal has discarded the evidence on spurious grounds. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate that appellants have examined PW2 Rahul eyewitness, author of the FIR, who was accompanying the deceased on the motorcycle at the time of accident. Appellants had also examined Anil Kumar/respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle, as PW4. Thus, the appellants had succeeded in proving that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. Therefore, Claim Petition could not have been dismissed only on technical grounds.

4. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and impugned Award be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company opposes submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that if there was eyewitness, then why was FIR registered against unknown vehicle and unknown driver. Moreover, in the criminal trial, both the above said witnesses, and even brothers of the deceased, have turned hostile resulting in acquittal of respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has handed over a copy of the judgment dated 21.05.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Hansi, Hisar in Court, which is taken on record. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of respondent No.1.

7. The pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal as recorded in para 1 of the impugned Award is as follows: -

“1. The facts which led to the filing of present claim petition are that on