Prakash Narain ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim of the appellants preferred under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 2 ) ONE Bachan Ram, husband of appellant No. 1 son of appellant No. 2 and father of appellants 3 and 4 was stated to have died as a result of truck bearing registration No. DLG 3367 belonging to respondent No. l, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 having struck down the said Bachan Ram on September 30, 1963, on the Grand Trunk Road (Delhi-Karnal Road) at about 5. 00 P. M. near about Azadpur Village. The deceased was stated to be 35 years old. He was a grass cutter who is stated to have had an income of Rs. 120. 00per month. The insurance company had denied the factum of insurance. Respondent No. 1 had admitted to be the owner of the said truck but had denied the accident. Respondent No. 2 had admitted that he was a driver employed by respondent No. 1 but had denied the accident. On the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal had framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident, if any resulting into death of Bachan Ram, was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 ? 2. Whether the respondent No. 1 got the truck in question insured with respondent No. 3 and a policy of insurance subsisted at the time of accident ? 3. To what amount, if any, as damages are the petitioners entitled ? 4. Relief. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal came to the conclusion that the truck was insured with respondent No. 3 and a valid policy of insurance subsisted at the time of the accident. It also held the damages proved came to Rs. 11,700. 00 as against claim of Rs. 30,000. 00 On issue No. 1 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was not proved that the accident was caused by the aforesaid truck but even if it be assumed that the said truck was involved in the accident it was not proved that the death of Bachan Ram was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. It was further observed that the deceased was partly responsible for the accident. It was further observed that the deceased was partly responsible for the accident. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against the decision, both on merits and as to the quantum of the compensation fixed, the appellants have come up to this Court. ( 5 ) ASSUMING that the vehicle involved in the accident was truck No. DLG-3367, before the appellants can succeed in getting a claim it has to be proved that the said truck was driven rashly and negligently by its driver resulting in the accident and ultimate death of Bachan Ram. Out of the witnesses produced the only possible eye-witnesses to the accident could be Om Parkash, Public witness 5, Ram pat, Public witness 6 and Hoshiar Singh the driver who appeared as R. W. 2. Hoshiar Singh has denied the accident and stated he knew nothing about it. He may or may not be telling the truth. The fact, however, that in his examination-in-chief he denied that he knew how to drive a truck but in cross-examination admitted that he had a licence for driving a heavy truck throws doubt on his testimony. All the same his testimony does not throw light on how the accident took place. Om Parkash said to be a disinterested person whose testimony has been discarded by the Tribunal on the ground that he is a chance witness stated that he was going on a cycle and had seen the deceased loading his Rera with grass. The truck overtook him and after it had passed the Rera he saw that the deceased had been struck down by it. Ram Pat, Public witness 6 who was travelling in the truck states that he had also seen the deceased loading his Rera with grass but as the truck passed by the Rera the deceased suddenly came on the road and was struck by the rear portion of the truck and fell down. He did not raise a hue and cry just then but a little later got out of the truck, came back to the site of the accident and there saw the deceased lying dead. It is an admitted case that the truck was on a highway and was on the correct side of the road. He did not raise a hue and cry just then but a little later got out of the truck, came back to the site of the accident and there saw the deceased lying dead. It is an admitted case that the truck was on a highway and was on the correct side of the road. Had there been any evidence to the fact that the deceased had been struck by the front portion of the truck or that the truck was being driven at an excessively fast speed, perhaps, it could be said that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. As it is, there is no evidence except that of Ram Pat as to how the accident took place. In such circumstances it is difficult to deduce that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by Hoshiar Singh. ( 6 ) MR. G. R. Chopra. the learned counsel for the appellants, urged that the very fact that the truck after hitting the man was driven away shows a guilty conscience of the driver and is proof of his rashness and negligence. According to the learned counsel if the driver was not at fault, in the normal course of human conduct, he should have stopped the truck immediately after the accident and seen whether any harm or damage had been caused. In support of his contention the learned counsel has invited my attention to two decisions. ( 7 ) IN Joginder Singh v. Himachal Govt. Transport1, Harbans Singh J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) held that the fact that the driver absconded after the occurrence raised a presumption of negligence on the part of the truck driver. In this case the truck in question had struck down a boy aged 9 riding a bicycle but in spite of the persons at the site shouting to the driver to stop the truck, he speeded away. The cyclist was hit by the truck from behind while the cyclist was going on the kacha portion of the road. In these circumstances obviously the act of the driver running away would raise a presumption of negligence. There is no such evidence in the present case. Indeed the only evidence is that the rear portion of the truck struck the deceased. The truck was being driven on the correct side and not at excessive speed. In these circumstances obviously the act of the driver running away would raise a presumption of negligence. There is no such evidence in the present case. Indeed the only evidence is that the rear portion of the truck struck the deceased. The truck was being driven on the correct side and not at excessive speed. The rule, therefore laid down by the learned Judge is not attracted. ( 8 ) IN Seethamma and others v. Benedict D sa and Others,2 bench of the Madras High Court observed that in an action for compensation for injuries or death caused in a motor accident, the burden of establishing actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle it unexceptionably upon the claimants. It is a firmly established rule that a person driving a motor vehicle on a High-way must drive the vehicle with reasonable car strictly observing the traffic regulations and the rules of the road, so as not to imperil the safety of other persons whether they are pedestrains or cyclists or other who have a similar right to use the highway. If the evidence establishes that the collision took place on the off-side of the road from the direction in which the driver was proceeding, the fact that he did so is prima facie evidence of negligence unless it is established that in the circumstances it was reasonable on the part of the driver to depart from the correct side of the road and stray into the off-side. It was also observed by the learned Judge that the "the mere fact that a motor vehicle is driven at a high speed is by itself not conclusive of any negligence. The speed at which a motor vehicle may be driven is the speed which in the circumstance is reasonable". The rules laid down by this bench decision relied upon by Mr. Chopra instead of helping him really go against him. ( 9 ) LASTLY Mr. Chopra urged that it was nobody s case that Bachan Ram died as a result of contributory negligence on his part and the Tribunal has wrongly introduced the question of contributory negligence. It is hardly necessary to dilate on this aspect but all the same the observations to this effect by the Tribunal are really based on what has come out in evidence. It is hardly necessary to dilate on this aspect but all the same the observations to this effect by the Tribunal are really based on what has come out in evidence. Bachan Ram was loading his rera and is stated to have suddenly come on the road which resulted in the accident. It seems nobody was really at fault but this unfortunate accident took place resulting in a fatal casualty. ( 10 ) INASMUCH as the appellants have failed to prove rashness and or negligence on the part of Hoshiar Singh the claim must unfortunately fail. ( 11 ) NO arguments were addressed on the quantum of the compensation and so, the finding regarding quantum is upheld. ( 12 ) THERE was no representation or opposition on behalf of the insurance company so, the findings against the insurance company are also hereby affirmed. ( 13 ) THE result is that this appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.