A claimant in a motor accident case must prove their case based on preponderance of probabilities, relying on witness testimonies that withstand scrutiny, rather than strict evidentiary standards.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Appellant impugns award dated 08.03.2021, whereby Detailed Accident Report (DAR) has been disposed of and compensation awarded.

2. The brief facts leading to the case are that telephonic information was received from a mobile number 9811327366 in respect of a road accident. A DD entry was recorded on 05.07.2014 at Police Post Inderlok.

3. Based on the information received, the Investigating Officer reached at the spot of the accident and discovered that the injured had already been shifted to the hospital by an unknown person.

4. Investigating Officer made a call at the above-referred mobile number and he was informed by the person (owner of the offending vehicle, Vikram Pratap Singh, who is respondent No.9 in this appeal), who answered the call that he was driving his car bearing registration number HR-26CA-5761 from Shastri Nagar to Inderlok-crossing, when he heard the sound of an accident and then noticed that a person was lying down on the road and also a scooty lying nearby. He informed the police, stopped his car and shifted the scooty to the side of the road and then removed the injured to Sunder Lal Jain hospital for treatment in a TSR. The owner of the vehicle informed the police that he had not seen the accident, but only heard the sound of accident.

5. Based on the information provided by the owner of the car, an FIR was registered against unknown person. Subsequently, the injured succumbed to the injuries sustained.

6. A Detail Accident Report was filed contending that when the deceased was driving his scooty, a car bearing registration number HR-26CA-5761 dashed against the scooty from behind. The scooty of the deceased struck against the road divider.

7. The driver of the offending vehicle stopped his vehicle nearby and came to the spot of accident. A crowd had gathered at the spot they detained the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver of the offending vehicle shifted the deceased to the hospital in a TSR.

8. As per the Detailed Accident Report, respondent No.8, Raju Prasad was the driver of the vehicle, which was owned by respondent No.9, Vikram Pratap Singh. Petition was also filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT seeking compensation.

9. In the joint reply by owner and driver and the reply of the insurance company, the accident was disputed and it was contended that the vehicle insured with the appellant insurance company has been wrongly roped in and no accident had been caused by the said vehicle or by the driver of the said vehicle.

10. In support of the case of the claimants, PW-2, Mohd. Sagir was produced as an eye-witness, who deposed that he was working as a TSR driver and on the date of the accident i.e., 05.07.2014, he was engaged by one person to travel from Chawri Bazar to Ram Dharam Kanta, Inderlok and then back to Chawri Bazar.

11. He deposed that when he reached Ram Dharam Kanta, Inderlok at about 7.45 AM. and was asked by the person who had hired his TSR to wait, he saw the offending vehicle being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooty going in front of the offending vehicle. He deposed that as a result of collusion, the scooter driver fell on