##PAGE1##

SARITA RANI

2026.04.10 15:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

FAO No.110 of 2002 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:055792

incurred substan(cid:13)al medical expenses and suffered permanent disability affec(cid:13)ng his earning capacity and future prospects.

3. The claim pe(cid:13)(cid:13)on was contested by respondent Nos.1 and 2, who denied the manner of accident as alleged and a ributed negligence to the claimant himself, or alterna(cid:13)vely to another uniden(cid:13)fied vehicle. The Insurance Company also denied the occurrence, alleging that the claim was

fabricated.

4. Upon apprecia(cid:13)on of evidence, the Tribunal held that the claimant had failed to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Though compensa(cid:13)on was assessed, the claim pe(cid:13)(cid:13)on was dismissed in view of failure to prove

negligence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that even if negligence was not conclusively established, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensa(cid:13)on under Sec(cid:13)on 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

as the involvement of the vehicle was admi ed by respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the claim pe(cid:13)(cid:13)on was essen(cid:13)ally founded on Sec(cid:13)on 166 of the Act, wherein negligence is a sine qua non, and having failed to prove the same, the claimant cannot be permi ed to shi1 his stand and seek relief under Sec(cid:13)on 163-A. It is further contended that the Tribunal has rightly rejected

this argument.

7. This Court, while exercising appellate jurisdic(cid:13)on, is conscious that findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, par(cid:13)cularly those based on apprecia(cid:13)on of evidence, ought not to be interfered with unless shown to be

perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to the record.

8. Having given though6ul considera(cid:13)on to the rival submissions and upon a comprehensive reappraisal of the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal

SARITA RANI

2026.04.10 15:45 I attest to the accuracy Page 2 of 4 of this document/order

FAO No.110 of 2002 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:055792

do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity warran(cid:13)ng interference in appellate jurisdic(cid:13)on.

9. At the outset, it is to be noted that a claim under Sec(cid:13)on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is founded upon proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Though the standard of proof in such proceedings is that of preponderance of probabili(cid:13)es and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, the claimant is nevertheless required to present a

consistent, credible, and cogent version of the occurrence.

10. In the present case, the very genesis of the claimant’s version stands contradicted by his own earliest statement recorded contemporaneously in the daily diary report (Ex.R-1), wherein he merely stated that “something” had struck his bicycle and that the incident had occurred by chance, without a ribu(cid:13)ng negligence to any iden(cid:13)fiable vehicle or person. Such an omission, in the earliest version, assumes considerable significance and casts a serious doubt on the subsequent improved version

introduced in the claim pe(cid:13)(cid:13)on.

11. The tes(cid:13)mony of the alleged eye-witness – PW3 Ishwar also fails to inspire confidence. His conduct in not disclosing the alleged involvement of the offending vehicle to the police or to any other person at the relevant (cid:13)me, despite claiming to have noted the registra(cid:13)on number, renders his presence and tes(cid:13)mony doub6ul. The delayed disclosure of material

par(cid:13)culars further weakens the eviden(cid:13)ary worth of his statement.

12. It is true that the respondents did not step into the witness box to substan(cid:13)ate their defence; however, it is equally well se led that the weakness of the def