The court reinforced that claimants must provide credible evidence linking the vehicle to the accident, and delays in FIRs do not automatically invalidate claims if other evidence is sufficient.

JUDGMENT :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment & award dated 18.07.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Makrana, District Nagaur in MAC Case No.104/2014 (CIS No.42/2020) whereby the claim petition as preferred by the injured claimant has been dismissed.

2. The following issues were framed in the present matter :

HINDI IMAGE

3. While deciding issue No.3, in view of the preliminary objections raised by the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal framed four points for consideration :

HINDI IMAGE

4. The learned Tribunal while elaborately considering the evidence as recorded, specifically concluded that the present is a clear case of subsequent implication of a vehicle. Learned Tribunal took into consideration the fact that the criminal complaint was filed on 21.09.2013 qua the accident which occurred on 21.08.2013 i.e. after a period of one month. Admittedly, in the present matter, the injured suffered only one fracture and qua the same, he was admitted in hospital on 21.08.2013 and was discharged on 28.08.2013. Despite having been discharged on 28.08.2013 and there being only one grievous injury caused to the injured, the complaint was filed on 21.09.2013.

5. Further, the learned Tribunal took into consideration the specific fact that the alleged eye witness Prema Ram (AW2), in his examination-in-chief, did not even disclose the number of the vehicle. He rather admitted that there was no number on the vehicle which caused the accident. Further, the said witness clearly admitted the fact that Gopi Ram, the alleged driver of the vehicle and the claimant Laxman Ram were close relatives.

6. The learned Tribunal also took into consideration the specific fact that the registered owner of the vehicle in question, NAW2 Sohan Lal, clearly denied the factum of accident. He denied the fact of having lent the motorcycle in question to Gopi Ram, the alleged driver. He even deposed that he was pressurised to sign on the reply to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. The learned Tribunal also took into consideration the statements of the claimant Laxman Ram (AW1) himself who specifically deposed that in the accident in question, he suffered only one injury and others were only simple bruises.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the police, in its investigation, found the driver of the alleged vehicle guilty and filed the charge-sheet against him. There was no reason for the learned Tribunal to disbelieve the said documents of the investigating agency and holding to the contrary. Learned counsel submitted that the strict principles of evidence do not apply to the motor accident claim cases and the claimants are not required to prove the negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further submitted that as is the settled position of law, only because of the FIR having been lodged with a delay, no adverse inference against the claimants could have been drawn. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned award dated 18.07.2022.

9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and pursued the material available on record.

10. Before entering into the analysis of the facts and the evidence on record, it is relevant to note the relationship between the parties concerned. As is clear on record, the alleged eye witness Prema Ram (AW2) is the nephew of claimant Laxman Ram. The driver Gopi Ram is a resident of the same village to which Laxman Ram belongs and both are well known to each other. Further, the owner of the vehicle in question i.e. Sohan Lal is not only a close relative of claimant Laxman Ram but also his neighbour. Further, Gopi Ram i.e. driver of the vehicle is first cousin of owner Sohan Lal. Meaning thereby, all the four persons i.e. claimant Laxman Ram, driver Gopi Ram, owner Sohan Lal and alleged eye witness Prema Ram are very well known to each other and even the relatives.

11. Admittedly, the FIR qua t