IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 10.03.2025 SHAHNAJ AND ANR. .... Appellants VERSUS LAKHAN CHAND AND ANR. .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

None for respondent No.1.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No..2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants challenging the award dated 30.07.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby their claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the accident had occurred on 22.05.2012 whereas the injured, in order to obtain disability certificate, had appeared before the Medical Board on 23.06.2012 and that it could not be established that the injured got injuries as a result of the accident in question or by fall from the roof or tree.

2. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the delay in lodging the FIR was occasioned due to the fact that the claimant-appellants remained admitted in the hospital from 22.05.2012 to

30.05.2012 and the relevant documents pertaining to hospitalization were also produced and proved on record. Learned counsel for the claimant- appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Ors. [2011(2) RCR (Civil) 190] to contend that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases and has further placed reliance upon the case of Anita Sharma & Ors. V/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 200]

3. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1.

4. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that the claim petition has rightly been dismissed inasmuch as there was a delay in lodging the FIR.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case the claim petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay in lodging the FIR as also due to the fact that the accident had occurred on 22.05.2012 whereas the injured appeared before the Medical Board on 23.06.2012 and that it could not be established whether the injured got injuries as a result of the accident in question or as a result of falling from the roof or tree. The accident had taken place on 22.05.2012 and the FIR was lodged on 25.06.2012 as is apparent from a copy of the FIR (Ex.P75) i.e. after a delay of about one month and three days. As per the statements of PW-1, namely, Mubin Ansari, Record Keeper, Saniya Hospital, Alwar, the claimant-appellant No.1, was admitted in the said hospital on the same day and this witness has proved on record the treatment record as Ex.P1 to Ex.P66. Similarly, the treatment record of claimant-

appellant No.2 was proved on record by PW-2, namely, Prem Chand Sharma, Record Keeper, Khandaka Hospital, Jaipur. Father of the injured claimant-appellants stepped into the witness as PW-3 and testified about the date, time and place of the accident in question. This witness testified about the detailed period of treatment of his children, which reveals that due to treatment of his children he could not lodge the FIR in time. Learned counsel for the respondents could not elicit anything from the cross- examination of the above witnesses to prove that the accident in question had not taken place as alleged. Even no suggestion has been put to these witnesses that the injured claimant-appellants did not receive any such injuries in the accident in question or that the injuries were received by them due to a fall etc. A perusal of the final report (Ex.P76) also reveals that the challan under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC against respondent No.1- owner/driver has already been presented before the Illaqa Magistrate concerned.

7. In motor accident cases the delay in lodging the FIR would not be fatal to the claim. Hon’ble Supreme Court