In motor accident claim cases, the involvement of the vehicle and negligence of the driver must be proved on the basis of preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt, and delay in lodging the FIR is not a sufficient ground to dismiss the claim.

Order on Board

1. The claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act assailing the award passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 06/2020 dated 14.03.2023, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that on 30.08.2019 around 8:40 pm the deceased was returning from village Ganiyari on his motorbike, the driver of the offending car bearing registration No. CG 12 ZD 2958 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the bike from back side, resultantly, the deceased Harishchandra Yadav sustained injuries and succumbed to death. A merg was registered and later on FIR was lodged on 10.10.2019. An offence under Section 304A of IPC was registered against the driver of unknown vehicle. The police, during course of investigation, seized the offending car on 04.11.2019. The driver of the offending vehicle was arrested on 04.11.2019. After investigation police filed final report.

3. In the claim petition, the claimants have pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 40 years and earning Rs. 12,000/- as he was a Hotel operator. They claimed a sum of Rs. 40,10,000/-. The Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that the deceased was negligent while driving his bike . Further plea was taken that the driver of the offending car was driving it in breach of condition of Insurance policy. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed.

4. Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate would submit that the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on following grounds :-

I. The eye-witness to the incident/Virendra Kumar Sharma did not intimate police or family members of the deceased immediately after accident.

II. In inquest report, there is no whisper that the bike of the deceased was dashed by the offending car.

III. In postmortem report, there is no allegation against the offending car.

IV. After getting registration number of the offending car, the investigating officer did not collect information with regard to owner of the vehicle from Regional Transport Authority.

V. Surprisingly, Virendra Kumar Sharma appears before the police station and disclosed the registration number of the car.

VI. Without service of summons the owner of the vehicle appeared in police station and admitted involvement of his car in the accident.

5. Mr. Utsav Mahishwar would submit that the claimants are not required to prove involvement of the vehicle or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle beyond reasonable doubt rather the learned Tribunal has to decide the case on preponderance of probability. He further submit that the learned Tribunal committed error of law while dismissing the claim petition on the ground of delay in registration of FIR. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and Others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693. He would pray to set-aside the judgment and award.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Dashrath Gupta would oppose. He would submit that FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Virendra Kumar Sharma, whose statement under Section 161 of CrPC was recorded after 36 days of incident. He would submit that Virendra Kumar Sharma, so called eye-witness, never approached the police