In motor accident claims, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability, and delays in FIR lodging do not invalidate claims if reasonable explanations are provided.

ORDER

M.A. No.6392 of 2024 has been filed, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , against Award dated 15/5/2024 passed by VIII Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) in MACC No.1240 of 2021 for enhancement of compensation.

M.A. No.5224 of 2024 has been filed by the Insurance Company against the finding given by the Claims Tribunal that the Insurance Company is jointly and severally responsible to pay the compensation.

Accordingly, both the appeals are being decided by this common order.

MA No. 6392 of 2024

2. This appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation on the solitary ground that the Court below has held that appellant has failed to prove his permanent disability. However, it is fairly conceded by learned counsel for appellant that in none of the documents it is anywhere mentioned that appellant has suffered permanent disability.

3. Learned counsel for appellant has tried to rely upon the evidence of Dr. Aditya Shrivastava (AW-4), who has stated that appellant had suffered permanent disability. He has also stated that he had re-examined appellant on 31/10/2022 but could not point out anything from the prescription which was issued by this doctor on 31/10/2022 to show that any permanent disability was mentioned. It is really surprising that Dr. Aditya Srivastava (AW-4) was examined on 28/7/2023 i.e. nine months after the second re-examination. Once Dr. Srivastava had not mentioned permanent disability in his prescription, then how he could remember that the appellant had suffered permanent disability could not be explained by learned counsel for appellant.

4. In absence of any documentary evidence to support the contention that appellant has suffered permanent disability, this Court finds it difficult to rely on the evidence of Dr. Aditya Srivastava (AW-4). Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal did not commit any mistake by holding that appellant has failed to prove permanent disability.

5. Accordingly, MA No. 6392 of 2024 filed by claimant for enhancement of compensation is hereby dismissed MA Number 5224 of 2024

6. Challenging the findings given by the Claims Tribunal with regard to liability of Insurance Company, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the accident took place on 30/10/2020. However, police was informed on 22/11/2020 i.e after a gap of 22 days, and therefore, it is clear that accident was not caused by the so-called offending vehicle bearing registration number MP07 -CE-9101.

7. Under these circumstances, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company that, in fact, claimant has failed to prove that accident was caused by offending vehicle bearing registration number MP07 -CE-9101.

8. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for claimant that it is a well- established principle of law that a claim case cannot be decided on the basis of documents of criminal case. It is further submitted that after the accident took place, injured was admitted in Birla Hospital, Gwalior. Since caretakers of injured were busy in her treatment, therefore, if they could not lodge an FIR, then that by itself is not sufficient to discard the case of claimant.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486 has held as under:

“21. We have no hesitation in observing that such a hypertechnical and trivial approach of the High Court cannot be sustained in a case for compensation under the Act, in connection with a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of a family member. Recently, in Mangla Ram v. Oriental I