JUDGMENT

The National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as „the appellant ) is in appeal against the judgment and award dated 30th January, 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu ( for brevity “the Tribunal”) in file No.301/C, whereby the claim petition filed by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as „the claimant ) has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,58,801/- along with interest @ 7.5%per annum to the claimant.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged in the memo of appeal, it would be necessary to take note of few facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal.

On 21.04.2012 at about 6.15 a.m., a motor vehicular accident involving vehicle No. PB-35H-3559 (Tata Indico Car), driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.3, took place at Smailpur Chowk, Bari Brahmana within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Bari Brahmana in which respondent No.1, who was standing on the roadside, was hit and grievously injured. A claim petition was filed by respondent No.1 against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 claiming a compensation of Rs. 35,00,000/-.

On being put on notice, the appellant filed its objections and contested the claim petition through its counsel Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, whereas Mr.P.S. Chandel, Advocate entered appearance on behalf of the owner and driver. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries on 21.04.2012 in the accident took place at Smailpur Chowk due to negligence driving of vehicle No.PB- 35H-3559 at the hands of erring driver respondent No.2? OPP

2. In Case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to compensation; if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable for want of registration of criminal case against driver of offending vehicle? If so, what is its impact? OPR-3

4. Relief. O.P. Parties.’

As is apparent from the framed issues, the onus to prove the issues was put on the claimant insofar as issue Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, whereas onus of proof of issue No.3 was placed on the appellant. With a view to discharge the burden of proof, the claimant besides, herself entering the witness box also examined eye witnesses, namely, Mohd. Mehboob-ul-Ann (PW-2), Mohd. Rafiq (PW-3) and also examined Dr. Rajesh Gupta (PW-4), an Orthopedic Surgeon. Bahadur Singh (PW-5), Sr. Pharmacist in the office of CMO, Jammu was also produced by claimant to prove the disability certificate. The appellant or respondent Nos. 2 and 3 chose not to lead any evidence in rebuttal.

3. On the basis of the evidence led by the claimant, the Tribunal held issue Nos. 1 and 2 proved in favour of the claimant and against the appellant. Issue No.3 was decided against the appellant. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence led by the claimant in the light of various precedents of this Court and other High Courts came to the conclusion that in the given facts and circumstances, the non-registration of the FIR with respect to the motor vehicular accident was in no way fatal and the factum of accident could well be proved by leading oral evidence. The Tribunal also took note of the explanation tendered by the claimant for not getting the FIR of the accident registered.

4. The Tribunal after returning the issue-wise findings allowed the claim petition and awarded the above noted sum by way of compensation to the claimant. The appellant is aggrieved and assails the award primarily on the following grounds:-

i) The claim petition was not maintainable as, admittedly, there was no FIR registered with the concerned police station with regard to the incident/accident.

ii) The claimant having failed to prove that the injuries were caused due to the use