Motor Act–Dismissal of Claim Petition–Justification–High Court rejected the claim with the view that the eye witness was introduced by the claimants and he did not lodge the FIR–Further, if the owner-cum-driver would have committed the fault of driving rashly, he would not have lodged the FIR– Owner-cum- driver did not choose to come in witness box–Witness AW 3 is neither related to the deceased nor he was remotely connected to his family–He acted as a good samaritan and took the deceased to the hospital–Failure of respondents in cross-examination of AW 3 as regards to his version–He could not be expected to go simultaneously to the police station–Approach of High Court was not proper–Findings of High Court are liable to be overturned.
