Balbir Alias Leela and Another vs Vikas and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the claimants challenging the award dated 22.04.2011 vide which learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short; the Tribunal'') dismissed their claim petition brought u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On the death of Sanjay, a son of the claimants having occurred in a road side accident that took place on 22.10.2009, Balbir alias Leela and Smt. Birmati, the claimants have brought the claim petition seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

On 22.10.2009 Sanjay alongwith Vijaypal and Bhisham was going to village Bhaini Surjan on motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-19B-9038. The motorcycle was driven by Sanjay. At about 4.35 PM when they were ahead of Meham towards village Bhaini Surjan, a motorcycle came from the opposite direction and struck against the motorcycle driven by Sanjay, which fell down and all of them received injuries. Sanjay was brought to General Hospital, Meham where he was declared as brought dead.

The respondents have resisted the claim petition. They have denied the involvement of motorcycle No. HR-15A-1735 in the accident. They have denied the accident to have been caused by driving of this vehicle. The claim petition is said to be not maintainable against the answering respondents.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal:--

1-. Whether accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-15A-1735 by respondent No. 1 Vikas, resulting into death of Sanjay, as alleged? OPP

2- If issue No. 1 is proved, whether claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3- Whether petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

4- Whether respondent No. 1 was not having a valid driving licence and offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy at the time of accident? OPR-3

5- Relief.

The parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal has held that the claimants have failed to prove that it was Vikas who was driving the vehicle and had caused the accident.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that though the FIR does not name the culprit or give number of the offending vehicle, yet during investigation it was found that the accident has been caused by Vikas by driving motorcycle No. HR-15A-1735 in a rash and negligent manner. According to him, learned Tribunal even did not rely upon the circumstance that for this accident Vikas is facing trial.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, on the other hand, has submitted that it is a case of hit and run where the name of Vikas and number of his motorcycle has been given without any basis and the claim petition has been rightly dismissed by learned Tribunal, it is admitted that the FIR neither have the name of the driver of the motorcycle nor number of the motorcycle involved in the accident,

It is the case of the appellants that Bhisham Singh, a witness of the accident later on came to know that the motorcycle involved was HR-15A-1735 and the person driving the same was Vikas, who had caused the accident by his rash and negligent driving of the same. Bhisham Singh appeared as PW-3 in this case. He is a police official and relative of the deceased. Appearing as PW-3 Bhisham Singh has admitted in his statement that he became unconscious at the spot. He has further admitted that he did not tell the police in his statement that Vikas was driving the motorcycle and the motorcycle bore registration No. HR-15A-1735. He has further stated that he was told by the investigating officer at PGI, Rohtak that Vikas was driving the other motorcycle. He did not name the investigating officer, who told him in this regard. No effort was made to examine the investigating officer of the case, who could tell as to how he came to know that the accident was caused by Vikas by driving motorcycle No. HR-15A-1735 in a rash and negligent manner.

In the face of this evidence coming on record, issue No. 1 could not be decided in favour of the claimants only for the reason that Vikas has been sent by the police to face trial. Learned Tribunal was, thus, justified in reaching the conclusion that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident has been an outcome of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle No. HR-15A-1735 by Vikas, respondent No. 1. Finding of learned Tribunal on this issue is, therefore, affirmed. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.