In accident claims, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities. Delay in reporting an accident is not fatal if adequately explained by the claimant's medical condition, and the non-appearance of the driver or owner warrants an adverse inference against them.

JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. The present appeals have been preferred against the award dated 04.10.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the claim petitions filed by the appellant(s) was/were dismissed. Since both the claim petitions arise out of the same accident dated 06.05.2010, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

FACTS

2. The case of the appellants was that on 06.05.2010 at about 9:00 A.M., the appellants were travelling on a motorcycle from village Titoli to Rohtak, when a jeep bearing registration No. HR-12L-2838, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit their motorcycle. As a result thereof, both the appellants sustained grievous injuries and were shifted to PGIMS, Rohtak. It was further their case that due to the said accident, appellant Sanjay remained in coma for several days and both appellants suffered permanent disability affecting their earning capacity.

3. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions primarily on the grounds that there was an unexplained delay of about 48 days in lodging the FIR; that certain inconsistencies were noticed in the photographic evidence produced on record; that there existed a suspicion of collusion between the claimants and respondents No. 1 and 2; and that the claimants failed to satisfactorily establish negligence on the part of the offending vehicle.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT(S).

4. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal were perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law. It was argued that the delay in lodging the FIR stood sufficiently explained in view of the medical condition of the injured. He further submitted that the FIR and the charge-sheet (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2) clearly established the involvement of the offending vehicle in the occurrence. Learned counsel also emphasized that the injured witnesses, who appeared as PW4 and PW5, fully supported the case of the appellant(s) and their testimonies remained unshaken. Additionally, he also contended that the non-appearance of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle warranted drawing an adverse inference against them. Accordingly, it was submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal be set aside and that compensation be granted in a just and fair manner in accordance with the settled principles of law.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company supported the impugned award and contended that the same was well- reasoned and required no interference. It was argued that the unexplained delay of about 48 days in lodging the FIR, coupled with inconsistencies in the evidence, casted serious doubt on the genuineness of the claim. He further submitted that the appellant(s) failed to establish rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle and that the possibility of collusion with respondents No.1 and 2 could not be ruled out. Accordingly, prayer was made for dismissal of the appeal(s).

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. I find force in the arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant(s).

7. The Tribunal plac