In motor accident claims, cases must be adjudicated based on a preponderance of probabilities rather than the strict standard of proof required in criminal proceedings; minor discrepancies in witness statements or procedural delays (like non-reporting to police) do not negate findings of negligence when otherwise corroborated.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants assailing the award dated 20.12.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants for grant of compensation on account of death of Sumer Chand suffered in a motor vehicle accident came to be dismissed.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that the accident took place on the intervening night of 13/14.06.1999 near Sachdeva Rice Mill within the limits of village Shamgarh, District Panipat, when Sumer Chand was returning home on his bicycle from village Jainpur after visiting his grandmother. A truck bearing registration No. HRP-9965 which was driven by respondent No.1 Mohinder Singh, came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bicycle causing multiple grievous injuries to Sumer Chand who died at the spot. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of the death of Sumer Chand in a road accident.

3. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal noted that the claimants examined Ramesh Kumar (PW3) and Balwant Singh (PW4) as alleged eye-witnesses to the accident. Both deposed that on the intervening night of 13/14.06.1999, while passing near village Shamgarh, they saw a truck coming from behind at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, which hit the bicycle of the deceased, causing his death at the spot. The learned Tribunal, however, found material contradictions in their statements, observing that their names were also not mentioned in the FIR. Further, the learned Tribunal observed that they did not report the incident to the police immediately and their statements were recorded after an unexplained delay casting doubt on their presence at the scene. The learned Tribunal further observed that the FIR was initially lodged against an unknown vehicle and that the registration number of the truck was introduced later.

4. Further, the learned Tribunal based on the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and other documents held that the identity of the vehicle and its driver remained doubtful. The learned Tribunal concluded that the claimants failed to produce credible evidence to prove that the accident was caused by truck No. HRP-9965 driven by respondent No.1. The learned Tribunal also found indications of collusion between the claimants and the driver and owner of the vehicle to fasten liability upon the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal held that the claimants failed to establish rash and negligent driving or the involvement of the offending truck in the accident. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed holding that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. However, the learned Tribunal, in order to obviate any possible remand of the case by this Court in future, proceeded to assess the compensation on the basis of the structured formula and quantified the same at ₹ 3,17,000/-, making respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the claimants.

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence and erred in holding that the accident was not proved. It was contended that the testimony of Ramesh Kumar (PW3) and Balwant Singh (PW4) clearly established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. HRP-9965 by respondent No.1. Learn