Motor accident claims are adjudicated based on the preponderance of probabilities; public documents like FIRs and charge sheets should not be dismissed on trivial grounds, and medical history is not conclusive evidence to override a consistent claimant's version.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2016 passed in O.P.No.12 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant came to be dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/claimant, who was aged about 26 years and working as a driver, met with a road traffic accident on 07.12.2008 near Muttangi Village outskirts, when a lorry bearing No.AP 28 Y 3530, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car in which he was travelling, resulting in grievous injuries. It is the case of the appellant-claimant that he underwent treatment in various hospitals and incurred substantial expenditure towards medical treatment and allied expenses. A criminal case in Crime No.513 of 2008 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. On these allegations, the claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got examined PW.2 to PW.4 and marked Exs.A1 to A10, which include the FIR, charge sheet, panchanama of scene of offence, medical records and bills. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. However, the Tribunal, upon appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Exs.A1 to A3 (FIR, charge sheet and panchanama), which clearly establish the occurrence of the accident; and that the Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach by relying on minor inconsistencies in the medical record and delay in FIR, ignoring settled principles governing motor accident claims. Learned counsel also contends that police records cannot be discarded on trivial grounds and that the standard of proof is only preponderance of probabilities.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the judgment of the Tribunal and contended that the appellant-claimant failed to establish the occurrence of the accident as pleaded. It is submitted that there are material inconsistencies between the oral evidence and medical record, coupled with delay in lodging FIR and absence of MLC, which create serious doubt about the claim. It is thus contended that the Tribunal’s findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference.

5. A perusal of the evidence on record discloses that the appellant-claimant has placed reliance on Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge sheet and Ex.A3-scene of offence panchanama. The charge sheet filed by the police after investigation specifically implicates the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 28 Y 3530 as being responsible for the accident. The Tribunal, however, has brushed aside these documents mainly on the ground that there was delay in lodging the complaint and that the discharge summary contains a different history. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an approach adopted by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the settled principles governing adjudication of mo