The standard of proof in accident claims is preponderance of probabilities, but concrete evidence of involvement and negligence is necessary for a successful claim.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the Impugned Award dated 03.02.2018 passed by the Ld. Tribunal whereby the Ld. Tribunal has allowed the claim petition.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 12.10.2011, respondent No. 1 was going to his house from his place of work situated at Plot No. 324, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana on foot. At about 7:15 a.m. when respondent No. 1 reached Gurgaon border near petrol pump, bus bearing No. DL1PC 1685 came from Delhi side being driven in a rash and negligent manner at very high speed and while overtaking respondent No. 1 hit him, as a result of which respondent No. 1 fell down and sustained multiple injuries. An FIR No. 137/2012, under section 279/337/338 IPC was registered at PS Udyog Vihar.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Tribunal framed the following issues:

"(i) Whether the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident which took place on 12.10.2011 within the jurisdiction of PS: Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL1 PC 1685 by respondent No. 1?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

(iii)Relief?"

4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the appellant and Ld. counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the records of this case.

5. At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 1 has miserably failed to prove the involvement of alleged offending vehicle bearing No. DL1PC1685. He further submitted that the first document which was prepared after the accident is the MLC dated 12.10.2011 in which it is clearly mentioned that the respondent No. 1 was on bicycle and was hit by a two wheeler. He further submitted that there is a delay of more than one year in the registration of the FIR and there is no explanation for such delay. He further submitted that according to the respondent No. 1 the vehicle was seized at the spot whereas the vehicle was seized after one year and one month of the accident i.e. on 09.11.2012. Ld. counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla and others, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 301 to contend that to maintain a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle is sine qua non. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the appellant that in the present case, neither involvement stands established nor negligence. He further submitted that the testimony of PW 1 is contradictory in nature.

6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the respondent No. 1 that there is no infirmity in the impugned award. It is further submitted that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the case of the respondent No. 1. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the standard of proof in accident claim matters is much lower than i.e. required in criminal or civil matters.

7. As far as the contention of the Ld. counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the standard of proof in accident claim matters is much lower as compared to criminal or civil matters, there is no dispute in this regard and these matters are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, however, that does not mean that the Court has to shut its eyes on the facts, evidence and documents placed on record and just because an accident has happen