KIRANO DEVI Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants who are the legal heirs of deceased Om Bir Singh, impugn a judgment dated 24th April, 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) preferred by the Appellants was dismissed for want of proof of negligence on the part of the driver of Bus No.DL-1P-2273.

(2.) DURING the inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the Appellants examined Raj Kumar PW-3 in order to prove the involvement of Bus No.DL-1P-2273 and the negligence on the part of its driver, the First Respondent. He testified that on 8th September, 1993 he was going to Nand Nagri for purchasing some goods. When he reached at Gagan Cinema Chowk, he saw that a red line Bus No.DL-1P-2273 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from Wazirabad side, Mandoli Road and hit its front side against a cyclist. He testified that the driver of the offending bus fled away from the spot. The said cyclist was his relation. The Police reached the spot and removed the injured (Om Bir Singh) to GTB Hospital. He deposed that he informed the police about the manner of the accident. He went to inform the family members of the deceased. He also went to the Hospital after one hour.

(3.) IT is well settled that in a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act, negligence is required to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. In this case a reference is made by the Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, where the Supreme Court held that in a Petition under Section 166 of the Act, the Claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and a holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. Para 15 of the report is extracted hereunder: