The preponderance of probabilities in MACT cases and the prima facie inference of rash and negligent driving in a criminal case against the driver influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J. - Claimant is in appeal against the award dated 3rd September, 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short, 'the Tribunal').

2. Claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by the appellant in a motor-vehicular accident dated 8th of April, 2008.

3. It needs to be noticed that respondent No.3 i.e. Insurer already stood deleted before the Tribunal vide order dated 2nd of September, 2011. Thus, the issue remains between the claimant/appellant and the owner of the alleged offending vehicle.

4. As per the claim petition, while on 8th of April, 2008 at about 9.30 p.m. the appellant along with his friend namely Parkash Singh were going for evening walk, respondent No.1 while driving motorcycle Make Hero Honda Splendor bearing Regn. No.PB-08-AJ-0959 came from the back side in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed without blowing any horn and banged the motorcycle with the appellant. The appellant received injuries and became unconscious. Shri Parkash Singh arranged for conveyance and took the appellant to Civil Hospital, Nakodar. The appellant remained under treatment in the hospital from 9th April, 2008 to 21st April, 2008 where he underwent surgery. Steel rod and plate were inserted in left leg of the petitioner. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was spent on medicines, operations, scanning, special diet, charges for Hospital, conveyance etc. Thereafter also he remained under treatment.

5. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal :-

"1. Whether Mohinder Pal applicant on 08.04.2008 met with an accident with motorcycle No.PB08-AJ-0959 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 OPA

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to receive compensation on account of injuries suffered by him? OPA

3. Whether the claim application is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether respondent No.1 has no concern with offending motorcycle, if so, its effect? OPR

5. Relief."

6. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant holding that FIR was proved on file by the appellant. Thus, the best evidence having been withheld by the appellant it cannot be held that the accident was caused by rash and negligence on part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal decided Issue No.2 also against the appellant and disbelieved Exhibit P-1 i.e. the Disability Certificate. It has been held that the alleged accident took place on 8th of April, 2008 and the Disability Certificate was got prepared on 1st of April, 2009 which creates doubt about genuineness of the same. The Tribunal decided Issue No.4 also against the appellant holding that the petitioner has failed to bring any evidence on record to show that respondent No.1 has any concern with the motor-cycle.

7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of PW4 - Parkash Singh son of Jagat Singh on whose statement FIR No.82 dated 9th of April, 2008 was registered under Sections 279/337/ 338 of the IPC. He submits that in the cross-examination of the said witness suggestions have been put w.r.t. the contents of the FIR No.82 dated 9th of April, 2008 which was registered qua the accident. He thus submits that so far as the existence and the registration of the FIR is concerned, the same stands proved on record. He claims that in these circumstances finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 is perverse and the same deserves to be reversed. He further refers to the statement suffered by RW-1 who is none else but respondent No.1 (driver of the offending vehicle). He in his Examination-in-Chief himself refers to FIR and claims that the same is a false one.

8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further refers to other evidence on record including statement of PW-1 to show that the cumulative effect of whole of the evidence leads to inference