IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

211 FAO-1792-2021(O&M)

Date of decision: 18.04.2026 Bharat Bhushan ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Ashok Singla & Another ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Narender Pal Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Atul Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Amrinder Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2 (through VC).

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant against the dismissal of his Claim Petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 05.03.2021 passed in Case No.49 dated 09.03.2018 filed under Section

166 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”).

2. The appellant had filed the present case alleging that he had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that had taken place on 10.05.2017 due to the alleged rash and negligent driving of Car bearing registration No.HR-03-Q-9690 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being owned and driven by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. In respect of the same, the appellant had also registered FIR No.192 dated 15.05.2017 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula. However, vide the impugned Award, the claim petition of the appellant has been dismissed on account of the following reason: –

“15. The facts of the present case are very interesting and peculiar.

The claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act is to be decided on preponderance of probabilities and unlike criminal law proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. The claim petition filed by the claimant on preponderance of probabilities appears to be based upon improbable facts and it appears that the claimant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. My reasons in this regard are as under:-

(i) In the present case the stand taken by the claimant before the police at the time of registration of FIR, the stand taken in the claim petition filed before this Tribunal and stand taken before criminal court is different and rather self-contradictory.

This is evident for the following reasons:-

a) In claim petition the claimant has stated that the offending vehicle was driven by respondent No.1, after the accident the driver stopped his car at some distance from the spot and slipped away. Rajni wife of respondent No.1 was present in the car at the time of accident and she shifted him to Noheria Nursing Home for treatment from where he was referred to Mirchia's Diagnostic, Manimajra.

b) The FIR No.192 dated 15.05.2017 under sections 279 and 337 IPC, Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula Ex.P1 in the present case was registered on 15.05.2017 after five days of the accident. The said FIR was registered on the statement of claimant Bharat Bhushan, wherein the claimant had stated that the offending vehicle was being driven by lady whose name was subsequently heard by him as Rajni during his treatment and legal action was prayed for against driver Rajni. In the FIR itself it is also mentioned that he was taken in the offending vehicle for treatment to Noheria Hospital.

c) In the present claim petition when claimant was examined as PW5 during his cross-examination he specifically stated that the FIR in the present case was registered on his statement which was recorded after 5 days of the accident and on that day the statement given by him to the police was absolutely correct and it was made with full conscious of mind. He also stated that the police recorded his statement only once on 15.05.2017. He also stated that Rajni took him from the spot to Noheria Nursing Home and she alone shifted him from the spot. He also admitted that the respondent No.1 husband of Rajni reached Ortho Center, Panchkula and made the payment of charges. This evidence indicates that the husband of Rajni reached lateron.

d) In the criminal case which was registered by the police regarding the accident the claimant was examined as PW5, however, in his said sta