A compensation claim in motor accident cases must be proved by a preponderance of probabilities; mere proof of injury is insufficient if scientific evidence (FSL) and investigation reports fail to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle or the identity of the negligent driver.

***

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant against the award dated 13.12.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed by him, arising out of the accident dated 29.05.2017 involving car No. HR-70A-7572 and Activa No. HR-01-AP-2728 was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.05.2017 at about 8:30 p.m., the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on an Activa scooter bearing registration No. HR-01A-P2728, which was being driven by his son, Gagan, at a normal speed towards Prabhu Prem Puran on Jagadhri Road. Just as they had crossed the road, a car bearing registration No. HR-70A-7572, coming from the Jagadhri side and driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, struck their scooter, causing both the claimant and his son to fall onto the road. While the son sustained minor injuries, the claimant suffered grievous injuries, and though a crowd gathered at the spot, Respondent No. 1 managed to flee from the scene along with the offending vehicle. The claimant was initially rushed to Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt for primary aid and was subsequently shifted to C. Lal Hospital, Ambala Cantt, where he underwent surgical intervention. While the claimant was under treatment, his statement was recorded by the police, leading to the registration of FIR No. 162 dated 01.06.2017 under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, following which the offending car was seized and later released on Superdari to its owner. Asserting that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 1, whose vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 2 at the material time, the claimant preferred the underlying claim petition seeking an award of ₹20,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries and expenses sustained, by him.

3. Upon notice, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 appeared and contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statements, whereas Respondents No. 3 and 4 chose not to appear and were consequently proceeded against ex parte. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four distinct issues for consideration and adjudication. Upon a detailed evaluation and appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimant. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal passed by the learned Tribunal, the claimant has preferred the instant appeal before this Court to modify the award.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the impugned award dated 13.12.2021 passed by the learned Tribunal, Ambala, dismissing the claim petition, is completely based on conjectures and surmises, runs entirely contrary to the facts and evidence present on the case file, and is thus wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in declining the consistent statement of PW1 claimant Sanjeev Narula, who successfully proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Kuldeep Singh (Respondent No. 1), which version was fully corroborated by the eyewitness account of PW2 Gagan Narula and the medical testimony of PW3 Dr. Arun Kumar, Medical Officer, Government Civil Hospital, Ambala City, who