IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.: 09.04.2026 Prem Thakur …..Appellant Vs.

Gobind Ram and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Abhinav Kansal, Advocate for Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate with Ms. Ayushi Jain, Advocate for the Insurance Company.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present appeal is directed against the award dated

04.01.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat, whereby the claim pe,,on filed by the appellant–claimant, Prem Thakur, under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, came to be dismissed.

2. As per the case set up by the appellant, on 24.10.1999, he was proceeding on his scooter towards Sector-15, Sonipat, to visit his brother. When he reached near Geeta Bhawan Chowk and was turning towards Sector-14, a truck bearing registra,on No. HYS-283, allegedly driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck his scooter. As a result, the appellant sustained mul,ple injuries, par,cularly on his le: foot.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid allega,ons, the appellant ins,tuted a claim pe,,on under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act NEETIKA TUTEJA seeking compensa,on from the driver-cum-owner, registered owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. The claim pe,,on was contested by the respondents by filing wri=en statement, wherein the occurrence of the accident itself was denied. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 were, however, proceeded against ex parte. Upon considera,on of the pleadings, issues were framed and evidence was led by the par,es. The learned Tribunal, a:er apprecia,ng the material on record, dismissed the claim pe,,on.

5. Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant : Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim pe,,on by mis-apprecia,ng the evidence available on record. It is argued that the tes,mony of the claimant and other witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence, sufficiently established the occurrence of the accident and the injuries suffered. It is further contended that non- registra,on of an FIR cannot, by itself, be a ground to disbelieve the claim, as lodging of FIR is not a sine qua non for maintaining a pe,,on under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. Considera(cid:23)on by this court : This Court has considered the submissions advanced and has perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the par,es.

7. To substan,ate his case, the appellant examined four witnesses. PW-1 Dr. K.K. Dua deposed regarding the injuries sustained and proved the treatment slip (Ex.P1), discharge summary (Ex.P2) and OPD slip (Ex.P3). PW-2 Vinod Kumar proved certain photographs. PW-3 Lekh Raj was examined as an alleged eyewitness, and the appellant himself stepped into the witness box as PW-4.

8. It is well se=led that proceedings under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are in the nature of summary proceedings and the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probabili,es. At the same ,me, the claimant is required to establish, through cogent and reliable evidence, that the injuries were sustained in a motor vehicular accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

9. It is true, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant, that registra,on of an FIR is not a mandatory requirement for maintaining a claim under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the absence of an FIR assumes significance, when considered in conjunc,on with other a=ending circumstances.

10. In the present case, the alleged accident is stated to have taken place on 24.10.1999 at a busy chowk within the municipal limits of Sonipat. The appellant claims to have suffered serious injuries, including a crushed injury to the foot. Despite this, no report was lodged with the police, nor is there any material to indicate that any in,ma,on of the accide