In motor accident claim petitions, the standard of proof required to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle and negligence is 'preponderance of probability' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1 Challenge is to the award dated 26.11.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, whereby the claim petition filed by the injured-victim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the 1988 Act’) seeking compensation on account of the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident dated 20.01.2005, stands rejected.

2 The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition returning finding on issue No.1 against the claimant observing as under :-

“13. However, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the claimant. The accident took place on 20.01.05 and as per the version of the petitioner, her husband and villagers had arrived at the spot and she was shifted to the hospital for treatment. The FIR has been registered on the next day at the instance of the petitioner but neither the registration number of the offending three wheeler nor the name of its driver have been mentioned in the FIR. In case, three wheeler had turned turtle at the spot it must have also suffered some damage and driver must have been at the spot and the villagers must have noted his name and address as well as registration, number of the three wheeler and this fact would certainly have been mentioned in the FIR. During her cross-examination, PW4 deposed that she had told the registration number of the three wheeler to the police. She also deposed that the registration number of the three wheeler was disclosed to her by her husband in the hospital. However, the registration number has not been mentioned in the FIR and in case, registration number of the offending vehicle was in the knowledge of petitioner and her husband, there was no reason to withhold the same while lodging the FIR.

14. Husband of the petitioner had disclosed the registration number of the three wheeler to her which was not in her knowledge but petitioner has not examined either her husband or any other villager to prove that three wheeler bearing no. HR-558-0584 was the offending vehicle. Best evidence in the possession of the petitioner has been withheld for the reasons best known to her and on this account, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the petitioner that had this evidence been led, it would not have supported her version. All these circumstances amply prove that vehicle bearing no HR 558-0584 was not involved in the accident and has been subsequently introduced.

15. Merely because respondent no.1 has been prosecuted in the criminal case is no ground to hold that the occurrence took place on account of accident with vehicle bearing No. HR-558-0584. in 2001(3) RCR 582, Ram Karan Vs Zile Singh it has been held that registration of FIR, framing charge and even judgment of conviction or acquittal of criminal Court is not binding on the Tribunal and the onus of proving negligence is always upon the claimants and they have to discharge it. As to whether petitioner suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent no.1 or not has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before this Tribunal but the evidence led by the petitioner is not cogent and convincing and same does not inspire confidence. Rather, from the evidence led on file, the involvement of offending vehicle is not proved. This issue is accordingly decided against the petitioner.”

3 There is no denial to the fact that in the initial version with respect to the accident the details of the offending vehicle do not find place. However, it has come on record that after investigation, the police filed a report under Section 173 CrPC and on the basis thereof, respondent No.1 faced trial. Trite it is that in the claim petitions filed under the 1988 Act, the standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt, but preponderance of probability.

4 Law regarding standard of proof in the claim petition arising under Motor Vehicles Act is well settled and has been elaborately discussed by the Supreme Cour