The testimony of an eyewitness can be credible even if not cited in the Chargesheet, and sufficient evidence can establish the involvement and negligence of the offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. An Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company to challenge the Award dated 12.08.2021 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs.19,05,000/- along with interest 8% per annum has been granted on account of demise of Shri Vishal in a road accident, on 18.03.2015.

2. The main ground of challenge of the Award is that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the accident.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the admission and non-declarations in the evidence of PW2/Shri Ashok Kumar, who despite his assertion that he had remained on the scene of crime for about 15 minutes and had met the Police, but has admitted that his name did not feature in the List of Witnesses in the Chargesheet.

4. According to R3W1 the registration Number of the offending Car was revealed by PW2/Ashok Kumar, but the name of PW2/Ashok Kumar does not find mention in the List of Witnesses annexed along with the Chargesheet.

5. The R3W1/Sub Inspector Pramod Kumar has deposed that though the accident took place on 18.3.2015, the investigations were handed over to him on the next day i.e. 19.03.2015 and the Site Plan was prepared on 25.03.2015. During the investigations, he did not record the statement of any person present on accident spot.

6. Furthermore, the Site Plan does not mention or mark the place where the motorcycle or the dead body was found lying. The only place marked is the place of accident. There is no Seizure Memo of the motorcycle and no inspection has been carried out. Moreover, no enquiry leading to the ownership of the motorcycle of the deceased has been conducted. The I.O. deposed that he came to know about the offending vehicle from his informer and on the basis of this information; he went to the house of the registered owner, who gave a Letter admitting that the accident was caused by his vehicle.

7. It is argued that the testimony of Ashok Kumar cannot be believed and is not trustworthy. Furthermore, from the testimony of the I.O./R3W1 it is evident that he was not a witness to the accident and that no eye witness had approached him for recording of statement.

8. Furthermore, statement of Prashant Kumar Rathee was recorded under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, on 16.10.2019, wherein he stated that he had reached the spot at about 09:45 P.M. and came to know that the accident has taken place 2-3 minutes earlier. The details of the car were not disclosed by anyone on the spot.

9. It is thus, argued that there was no cogent evidence to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle. The reliance has been placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gurmeet Singh & Ors. [FAO-2999-2020 (O&M) decided on 05.10.2021], wherein it was observed that the Doctrine of Preponderance of Probability of Evidence does not mean that the Tribunal is not required to apply basic test of whether a particular fact is proved or not. Though, the standard of proof in civil cases is lower, but still the requirement is not dispensed with. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Award dated 12.08.2021 is liable to be set aside.

10. The learned Counsel on behalf of the Claimants has argued that there is testimony of PW2/Ashok Kumar which clearly establishes not only the involvement but also the negligence of the offending vehicle. Merely, because he has not been cited as a witness in the criminal case, does not take away his credibility of being an eye witness. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded the involvement of offending vehicle and the Appeal is without merit.

11. Submissions heard and record perused.

12. Briefly stated on 18.03.2015 at about 09:30 P.M., Shri Vishal (deceased) was going to his village on his motorcycle bearing registration No.UP-15-BC-7332. When he reached near Ralpro Residentia, Meerut, U.P, he was hit by an unknown vehicle which was subsequently id