In motor accident claims, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities. Delay in FIR registration, police cancellation reports, or non-examination of all witnesses do not invalidate a claim if the occurrence is otherwise established by credible evidence, including medical records and injured witness testimony.

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/driver & owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 08.02.2013 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant/driver of the offending vehicle was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- to the claimant/respondent along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till recovery.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.10.2009, the deceased alongwith Manjit Kaur wife of Tarsem Lal and Kuldip Kaur daughter of Manjit Singh were coming from Adampur to village Mana on motorcycle bearing no. PB-07V-6011, which was being driven by the claimant on correct side of the road. At about 1:50 PM, when the deceased just reached near Mandialan Petrol Pump, a tractor trolley bearing no. PB-07W-3998 driven by respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently suddenly turned towards Petrol Pump without giving any indicator and hit with the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the impact of the accident, deceased alongwith Manjit Kaur and Kuldip Kaur suffered various injuries on their bodies. Some passers-by took the deceased and other injured to civil hospital Hoshiarpur from where he was referred to DMC Ludhiana. The claimant remained admitted at DMC Ludhiana up till 14.12.2009. Even the deceased was remained under treatment till his death due to the accidental injuries suffered by him. An FIR no. 341 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC was registered on the statement of deceased.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents therein appeared and contested the claim petition by filing separate written statement denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the claimant suffered injuries in the motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of tractor trolley no.PB-07W-3898 by respondent No.1?OPA

2. Whether claimant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present petitioner? OPR

3. To want amount and from whom, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation if any? OPA

4. Relief.”

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant/respondent No.2. However, the appellants/driver & owner were held liable to pay compensation. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/driver & owner contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the appellant–driver.

8. He further contends that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate that the accident allegedly took place on 24.10.2009, whereas, Manjit Singh expired on 03.05.2012, i.e., after a lapse of more than two and a half years. According to the learned counsel, there is no cogent evidence on record to establish that the death of Manjit Singh was a direct consequence of the injuries sustained in accident in question.

9. He also contends that FIR No. 341 dated 23.12.2009 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC was registered after an unexplained delay of nearly 02 mon