JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Appellant-The New India Assurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’) against the award dated 30.03.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘learned MACT’) in MAC Petition No. 18 of 2009, titled as Sandeep Kumar vs. Vinod Kumar and others. 2. By way of award dated 30.03.2013, the learned MACT has allowed the petition filed by respondent No.1 Sandeep Kumar under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and passed the following award:- “33. In view of my discussion on the issues above, the petition is allowed with costs and the petitioner is awarded Rs.3,22,800/- (Rupees three Lac twenty two thousand eight hundred only) as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 29.02.2012, that is, the date when respondent No.3 Sunil Kumar was added as party to this petition, till the payment is made. This amount includes the interim compensation, if any, awarded to the petitioner under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount in question shall be paid by respondent No.2, that is, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Devpal Chowk Hamirpur, and respondent No.3 Sunil Kumar in equal shares. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. The file, after due completion, be consigned to Record Room.” 3. The parties, to the present lis, are hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, as were referred to, by the learned MACT. 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:- 4.1. Petitioner Sandeep Kumar has filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a road side accident, involving vehicles No. HP-22-7287 and CH1A-6859 against the respondents being driver, owner and insurer of vehicle No. HP-22-7287 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘first vehicle’) and owner-cum-driver of vehicle No. CH1A-6859 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘second vehicle’). 4.2. The claim petition has been filed against the owners and drivers of first vehicle, as well as, the second vehicle, as well as, insurer of the first vehicle. The petitioner has pleaded that on 12.01.2008, he was pillion rider on second vehicle being driven by respondent No.3. 4.2. The claim petition has been filed against the owners and drivers of first vehicle, as well as, the second vehicle, as well as, insurer of the first vehicle. The petitioner has pleaded that on 12.01.2008, he was pillion rider on second vehicle being driven by respondent No.3. They had started for Pakka Bharo from village Matahani. When, they reached near Pakka Bharo at about 9.30 p.m., the first vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 came there from the opposite side. Both the vehicles collided with each other, due to which, petitioner fell down and sustained injuries in his right leg. According to him, the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles, as they did not care to avoid the accident. 4.3. It is his further case that, after the accident, the petitioner was taken to Regional Hospital, Hamirpur, H.P., where, first aid was given to him and thereafter, doctor, on duty, had referred him to I.G.M.C. Shimla. He remained admit in I.G.M.C. Shimla from 13.01.2008 to 23.01.2008. In addition to this, the petitioner has also pleaded that he was also treated by the doctors of Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. 4.4. The information with regard to the accident was given to Police Station, Hamirpur, where, FIR No. 13 of 2008, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was registered against respondent No.3. The petitioner has pleaded his age at the time of accident as 22 years and according to him, he was Mason by profession, as such, he was earning Rs.6,000/-per month. 4.5. It is further case of the petitioner that he had spent Rs.1,50,000/- on his treatment. Lastly, it has been pleaded that due to disability suffered by him, he is unable to do the masionary work. He has also pleaded about his bright past and bleak future. 5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by awarding a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- along-with interest, as compensation. 6. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. 7. Respondents No.1 and 1(a) have filed their joint reply, in which, the factum of accident has not been disputed, but, according to them, the accident had taken place due to negligence of respondent No.3, as such, FIR has also been registered against him. 7.1. 6. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. 7. Respondents No.1 and 1(a) have filed their joint reply, in which, the factum of accident has not been disputed, but, according to them, the accident had taken place due to negligence of respondent No.3, as such, FIR has also been registered against him. 7.1. The claim petition has further been contested on the ground that the driver of the first vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. They have also denied that there was any contributory negligence on the part of respondent No.1. 8. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, of the first vehicle, has filed its reply by taking preliminary objections that the first vehicle was being permitted to ply without the requisite documents, respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and respondent No.1(a) has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. 8.1. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge. Like respondents 1 and No.1(a), respondent No.2 has also taken the plea that the FIR has been registered against respondent No.3, as such, accident in question had taken place due to negligence of respondent No.3. 9. Respondent No.3, Sunil Kumar, who is the owner-cum-driver of the second vehicle has filed reply by denying the allegations of negligence against him. However, the other contents of the claim petition have been denied for want of knowledge. According to him, there was no fault on his part in the accident in question. 10. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 1(a) by denying the preliminary objections, as well as, the contents of the reply, by virtue of which, the claim petition has been contested by re-asserting that of the claim petition. 11. Similarly, rejoinder has also been filed to the reply filed by respondents No. 2 and 3. 12. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned MACT on 23.08.2012:- 1. Whether petitioner Sandeep Kumar sustained injuries on 12.01.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of their respective vehicles bearing Registration Nos. HP-22- 7287 and CH-1A-6859 by respondent No.1 and respondent No.3, as alleged? OPP. 2. 12. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned MACT on 23.08.2012:- 1. Whether petitioner Sandeep Kumar sustained injuries on 12.01.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of their respective vehicles bearing Registration Nos. HP-22- 7287 and CH-1A-6859 by respondent No.1 and respondent No.3, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident in question, if so, its effect? OPR2. 4. Whether the vehicle bearing Registration No.HP-22-7287 was being driven by respondent No.1 against the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy at the relevant time, if so, its effect? OPR2. 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPRs. 6. Relief. 13. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 14. The learned MACT, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned counsel representing the respondents, has allowed the petition, as referred-to- above. 15. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, the Insurance Company has assailed the same on the ground that the award has been passed by ignoring the well settled legal proposition. The award is stated to be perverse. There was nothing on record to show the income and loss of future prospects of the petitioner. 16. It is the case of the Insurance-Company that the learned MACT has wrongly taken the income of the petitioner, whereas, the same should have been taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum. The document Ext. PW-1/A, which is FIR, as well as, statement of PW-2 have totally been ignored, as, from the contents of the FIR, as well as, from the statement of PW-2, according to appellant, it has been proved that the accident in question had taken place due to negligence of respondent No.3. Said Sunil Kumar has not stepped into the witness box. These grounds have been put forward to show that the liability to pay 50% of the amount of compensation has wrongly been saddled on respondent No.1. 17. Lastly, the impugned award has been assailed on the ground that the conclusion of the police about the fact that respondent No.3 was responsible for the accident in question has not been considered by the learned MACT. 18. 17. Lastly, the impugned award has been assailed on the ground that the conclusion of the police about the fact that respondent No.3 was responsible for the accident in question has not been considered by the learned MACT. 18. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, by setting aside the award passed by the learned MACT. 19. Per contra, the prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 4, on the ground the learned MACT has rightly appreciated the evidence, so adduced by the parties and the findings of the learned MACT do not require any interference by this Court. 20. In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to discuss the oral, as well as, documentary evidence, adduced by the parties, before the learned MACT. 21. After framing of issues, the petitioner has examined Ashok Kumar, Head Constable, Police Station, Hamirpur, who has proved the copy of FIR No. 13 of 2008, as, Ext. PW-1/A. According to him, as per record, the said FIR has been registered against Sunil Kumar, son of Pritam Chand. 22. PW-2 Manjit Parihar is the Criminal Alhmad from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur. He has proved the fact that as per record, accused, in the said case, was fined Rs.500/- for violation of provisions of Section 181 of the M.V. Act and Rs.1000/- for violation of Section 196 of the M.V. Act. Scooter No. CH-1A-6859 was taken into possession by the police. 23. PW-3 Dr. Manoj Thakur has deposed that the petitioner was operated on 13.01.2008. Thereafter, he has attended the petitioner in OPD. He was again admitted on 5. 03.2008. He was again operated upon on 06.03.2008. This witness has assessed the disability as 40% in relation to the lower limb. The nature of the disability is stated to be permanent. He has proved the disability certificate as Ext. PW-3/A, discharge slip Ext. PW-3/B and OPD slips Ext. PW-10 3/C to Ext. PW-3/E. Lastly, petitioner has deposed that due to the disability, he is not able to perform the heavy duty work. However, he can work as Mason. 24. Petitioner Sandeep Kumar appeared in the witness box as PW-4 and deposed as per the stand taken by him in the claim petition. PW-3/B and OPD slips Ext. PW-10 3/C to Ext. PW-3/E. Lastly, petitioner has deposed that due to the disability, he is not able to perform the heavy duty work. However, he can work as Mason. 24. Petitioner Sandeep Kumar appeared in the witness box as PW-4 and deposed as per the stand taken by him in the claim petition. In cross-examination, he has denied that in the investigation conducted by the police, fault of respondent No.3 was found. Voluntarily stated that both the drivers were negligent. He has admitted that there was head-on-collision between both the vehicles. 25. To rebut this evidence, respondent No.1 Vinod Kumar has stepped into the witness box as RW-1 and deposed that on 12.01.2008, while driving the first vehicle, he was on the way to Pakka Bharo. At about 9.30 p.m., when he reached at Pakka Bharo, then, second vehicle, being driven by respondent No.3, came there at a very high speed. He was driving the same in a negligent manner. On seeing him, car was parked on the side, but, respondent No.3 could not control the same and struck against the parked vehicle. This witness took petitioner, as well as, respondent No.3 to the Regional Hospital, Hamirpur. He has lodged the FIR. The person, who was driving the scooter, was under the influence of liquor. In the investigation also, his fault was also found. He has denied that the second vehicle was hit by him by driving the first vehicle. 26. This is the entire evidence on record adduced by the parties to the lis. 27. In this case, while deciding issue No.1, learned MACT has held that the accident in question had taken place due to negligence of drivers of both the vehicles and on the basis of findings given under issue No.1, the learned MACT has concluded that there was contributory negligence of respondents No. 1 and 3. These findings have been assailed before this Court by the Insurance-Company. 28. The proceedings under the M.V. Act are summary in nature, where, the liability of tort feasor is to be fixed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. When, it can be said that the liability can be fastened upon the tort feasor on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, it does not mean that whatsoever pleaded by the claimant is to be taken as a gospel truth. 29. When, it can be said that the liability can be fastened upon the tort feasor on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, it does not mean that whatsoever pleaded by the claimant is to be taken as a gospel truth. 29. In the petition, petitioner has pleaded that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondents No. 1 and 3. The petitioner, when appeared in the witness box although, deposed about the negligence of respondents No. 1 and 3, but, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that the FIR has been registered against respondent No.3. When, the question with regard to speed of the scooter was asked, he has feigned his ignorance, but, again stated that the speed was not fast. The FIR in question Ext. PW-1/A was lodged on the statement of Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, who is the driver of first vehicle. 30. Respondent No.3, in this case, has admitted the factum of registration of FIR, which has been mentioned in para 9 of the claim petition. The fact which has been admitted need not to be proved by the other party. He has simply pleaded that the accident in question had taken place due to negligent driving of respondent No.1. When, a specific stand taken by the party, then, it was incumbent upon the other party to prove or probabilize the said stand/defence by leading the evidence or got probabilized from the cross-examination of the witnesses examined by the other party. Despite the opportunities given by the learned MACT, respondent No.3 has not bothered to step into the witness box, as such, his non-appearance gives an occasion for this Court to draw an inference by holding that the stand taken by him in the reply is not correct. 31. Moreover, registration of FIR against respondent No.3 is the prima-facie proof of rash and negligent driving against respondent No.3. Had a false case been registered against respondent No.3, in that eventuality, in the ordinary course of events, he would have moved a complaint against the false registration of FIR against him before the police or some higher authorities. Nothing of the sort has been done by respondent No.3. 32. Respondent No.1 Vinod Kumar has specifically stated that the scooter had dashed against the stationary car. Nothing of the sort has been done by respondent No.3. 32. Respondent No.1 Vinod Kumar has specifically stated that the scooter had dashed against the stationary car. His stand has also been corroborated by PW-1, who has proved the copy of FIR Ext. PW-1/A and also deposed that the scooter No. CH1A-6859 was taken into possession. 33. Similarly, PW-2 Ashok Kumar has deposed that report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, arising out of FIR No. Ext.PW-1/A has been filed against Sunil Kumar, son of Pritam Chand (respondent No.3). 34. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioner has ever made any complaint/representation against the non-registration of FIR, had, in fact, respondent No.1 been negligent. Certainly, he would have been associated by the police in the investigation of the case, which has been registered against respondent No.3, being injured. Non-raising of objections with regard to non registration of FIR against respondent No.1 assumes significance, in this case, as the FIR has been lodged against respondent No.3 by respondent No.1. 35. The learned MACT has given much importance to the deposition of petitioner qua the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers. Except bald statement of petitioner, there is nothing on record to probabilise the allegations of rash and negligent driving against respondent No.1. 36. Considering all these, facts, this Court is of the view that the learned MACT has fallen into error while holding that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondents No. 1 and 3. Rather, it has been proved, in this case, that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. As such, award passed by the learned MACT is modified by exonerating respondent No.1, as well as, insurer of first vehicle, by holding that the entire liability to pay the amount of compensation, along-with up-to-date interest, as awarded by the learned MACT, is upon respondent No.3, Sunil Kumar. 37. With these observations, the appeal is allowed partly in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 38. Record be sent back.