The absence of a vehicle number in the FIR does not invalidate a claim in a vehicular accident case, and claims are decided based on preponderance of probabilities rather than strict evidence rules.

ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against award dated 16.12.2015 passed by First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior in MACT No.129/2014.

2. By this appeal, appellant is trying to dispute the involvement of offending Truck No.M.P.07- G-7148.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that on 19.12.2011, deceased Bharatveer Singh lost his life in a vehicular accident. An F.I.R. was lodged by Deepak Singh, brother of the deceased who admittedly was not present on the spot and was on his duty and he was informed by one Raje Khan, therefore, non-mention of number of offending vehicle in the F.I.R. is not very crucial. Later on, it appears that the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. MP07-G-7148 voluntarily gave an information to S.H.O. Police Station Purani Chhawani, Gwalior with regard to an accident which took place on 19.12.2011 and accordingly the police registered the case against the driver of offending Truck No.MP07-G-7148.

4. The Claims Tribunal by order dated 16.12.2015 allowed the claim petition and held that the accident was caused by driver of offending vehicle bearing Registration No.M.P.07-G-7148 by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and accordingly awarded Rs.18,44,900/- to the appellant on the terms and conditions mentioned in the award.

5. Challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that in the F.I.R. which was lodged on the very same day, the number of offending vehicle was not mentioned. About the one month thereafter, the owner of the offending vehicle voluntarily offered his vehicle as an offending vehicle and gave an information to the police which clearly indicates that the claim petition is collusive in nature. It is further submitted that the evidence of Prakash Gole PW/2 who had claimed himself to be an eye-witness is not reliable because after accident had taken place, the police had lifted the dead body of deceased Bharatveer Singh in his presence, then he would have certainly informed the police about the accident as well as the number of offending vehicle but the silence which was maintained by him for about one month clearly indicates that he was not the eye witness of the accident. However, it is fairly conceded by counsel for appellants that neither the Insurance Company nor the driver or owner of the vehicle entered in the witness box to rebut the contentions of the claimants.

6. Per contra, counsel for the claimants had supported the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal.

7. Heard learned counsel for parties.

8. The only question which has been raised by the counsel for Insurance Company is that the offending truck bearing Registration No.M.P.07-G-7148 was falsely involved after one month of the accident.

9. It is well established principle of law that for deciding the claim petitions, the Tribunal is only required to look into the evidence which is led by the parties and the documents of criminal case cannot be the basis for discarding the claim of the claimants. In the present case, admittedly the complainant Deepak Singh was not an eye-witness and therefore, if the number of offending vehicle was not mentioned in the F.I.R. then it will not have any adverse effect on the correctness of the claim made by the claimants/respondents. The claimants have also relied upon the evidence of Prakash Gole PW/2 who claimed himself to be the eye-witness. By referring to paragraphs 10 and 11 of his cross-examination, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that no plausible explanation was given by Prakash Gole PW/2 for maintaining silence for a period of one month. It is further submitted that once the police had lifted the dead body of deceased in the presence of this witness i.e. Prakash Gole PW/2 then it was mandatory on the part of this witness to inform the police about the number of offending vehicle and si