207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 25.08.2025 TEJ SINGH ....Appellant Versus MAHEDNER SINGH & ORS. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondent No.1 & 2 already proceeded ex parte vide order dated 09.05.2012.

Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Challenge is to the award dated 26.02.2011 passed by MACT, Rewari.

2. Claimant approached Tribunal with a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1988 Act’) seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor-vehicular accident, dated 04.02.2008.

3. As per the claimant, on the fateful day while he was coming back to his house on a bicycle carrying milk, he was hit by a car bearing Registration No.HR-36J-6527 from behind. He remained confined to bed for almost about three and a half months. After he recovered, he lodged DDR No.44, dated 11.06.2008 claiming that he had to incur medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- approximately and has been rendered permanently disabled. The claimant claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The claim petition filed by the claimant was contested by the respondents denying the accident.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident in question took place on 4.2.2008 at about 4.00 p.m. in the revenue estate of village Kabriwas is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No.HR-36J-6527 by Mahender Singh respondent No.1? OPP

2. Whether petition Tej Singh is entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered in the aforesaid accident, if so in what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether respondent No.3 is entitled to repudiate the contract of insurance on the grounds alleged? OPR

5. Relief.

6. Answering Issue No.1, the Tribunal found that apart from a DDR which was recorded four months after the accident, there is no other evidence to prove vehicular accident as claimed by the claimant. Delay of four months in lodging DDR remained unexplained. The explanation offered by the claimant regarding loss of memory was also found to be not trustworthy as the claimant neither brought on record any medical document to prove loss of memory, rather his conduct proved otherwise. Strangely, he claimed to have lost memory after the accident but still could spell out not only the registration number of the offending vehicle, but also name and parentage of the driver after four months.

7. Counsel for the appellant has assailed findings of the Tribunal. He submits that claimant approached Tribunal seeking compensation under Section 163-A of the 1988 Act. Injury suffered by him and the expenses borne were fully proved by testimony of PW-2 Satish Kumar, Record Keeper, Birendra Hospital, Rewari and thus the Tribunal ought not have non-suited the claimant, dismissing the claim petition.

8. Per contra, counsel representing respondent No.3, submits that the falsity of the claim of the claimant is evident on record. DDR No.44 dated 11.06.2008 was registered after four months of the incident. An attempt was made to cover up the delay by taking a false plea w.r.t. loss of memory and confinement to bed. Both of them were also found to be false. He submits that the claimant having miserably failed to link the injury suffered by him to a motor-vehicular accident, Tribunal rightly non-suited him.

9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case.

10. Trite it is that standard of proof in proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is ‘not beyond reasonable doubt’ but ‘preponderance of probabilities’. However, at the same time, the claimant who approaches Tribunal claiming compensation, is required to lead evidence to link the injury to the accident claimed to have caused it. In