Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shahnaj And Anr vs Lakhan Chand And Anr on 10 March, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
252 FAO-8891-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 10.03.2025
SHAHNAJ AND ANR. .... Appellants
VERSUS
LAKHAN CHAND AND ANR. .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
None for respondent No.1.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No..2.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants
challenging the award dated 30.07.2014 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Mewat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby
their claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was
dismissed on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the
accident had occurred on 22.05.2012 whereas the injured, in order to obtain
disability certificate, had appeared before the Medical Board on 23.06.2012
and that it could not be established that the injured got injuries as a result of
the accident in question or by fall from the roof or tree.
2. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
the delay in lodging the FIR was occasioned due to the fact that the
claimant-appellants remained admitted in the hospital from 22.05.2012 to
30.05.2012 and the relevant documents pertaining to hospitalization were
252 FAO-8891-2014 (O&M) -2-
also produced and proved on record. Learned counsel for the claimant-
appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Ors. [2011(2) RCR (Civil) 190] to
contend that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a
criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases and has further placed
reliance upon the case of Anita Sharma & Ors. V/s The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 200].
3. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1.
4. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend
that the claim petition has rightly been dismissed inasmuch as there was a
delay in lodging the FIR.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case the claim petition was dismissed on the
grounds of delay in lodging the FIR as also due to the fact that the accident
had occurred on 22.05.2012 whereas the injured appeared before the
Medical Board on 23.06.2012 and that it could not be established whether
the injured got injuries as a result of the accident in question or as a result of
falling from the roof or tree. The accident had taken place on 22.05.2012 and
the FIR was lodged on 25.06.2012 as is apparent from a copy of the FIR
(Ex.P75) i.e. after a delay of about one month and three days. As per the
statements of PW-1, namely, Mubin Ansari, Record Keeper, Saniya
Hospital, Alwar, the claimant-appellant No.1, was admitted in the said
hospital on the same day and this witness has proved on record the treatment
record as Ex.P1 to Ex.P66. Similarly, the treatment record of claimant-
252 FAO-8891-2014 (O&M) -3-
appellant No.2 was proved on record by PW-2, namely, Prem Chand
Sharma, Record Keeper, Khandaka Hospital, Jaipur. Father of the injured
claimant-appellants stepped into the witness as PW-3 and testified about the
date, time and place of the accident in question. This witness testified about
the detailed period of treatment of his children, which reveals that due to
treatment of his children he could not lodge the FIR in time. Learned
counsel for the respondents could not elicit anything from the cross-
examination of the above witnesses to prove that the accident in question
had not taken place as alleged. Even no suggestion has been put to these
witnesses that the injured claimant-appellants did not receive any such
injuries in the accident in question or that the injuries were received by them
due to a fall etc. A perusal of the final report (Ex.P76) also reveals that the
challan under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC against respondent No.1-
owner/driver has already been presented before the Illaqa Magistrate
concerned.
7. In motor accident cases the delay in lodging the FIR would not
be fatal to the claim. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi (supra),
wherein there was a delay of 03 months in lodging the FIR, held as under :
'21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases
is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation
of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves
factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a
case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be
the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other
252 FAO-8891-2014 (O&M) -4-
words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor
accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should
not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant
has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent
reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in
genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith
and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of
tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if,
there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such
circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much
more significance than delay in lodging thereof
supported by cogent reasons.'
8. It is well settled that in motor accident claim cases once the
foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident has been
established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of
just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of
the driver. The standard of proof to be borne in mind must be preponderance
of probabilities and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable
doubt which is followed in a criminal case. Reference in this regard can be
made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita &
Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. [2020 (13)
SCC 486].
9. Further in Anita Sharma's case (supra) it was held as under :
252 FAO-8891-2014 (O&M) -5-
'22. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the
High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict
principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a
criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The
standard of proof in such like matters is one of
preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond
reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the
approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in
accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with
non-examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may
happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to
analyze the material placed on record by the parties to
ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely
than not true. A somewhat similar situation arose in
Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10
SCC 646. wherein this Court reiterated that:
"7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of
negligence on the part of the first respondent who
was driving the pickup van as set up by the
claimants was required to be decided by the
learned Tribunal on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities and certainly not
on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [(2009) 13 SCC
252 FAO-8891-2014 (O&M) -6-
530: (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
1101])"
(emphasis supplied)
23. The observation of the High Court that the author of
the FIR (as per its judgment, the owner-cum-driver) had
not been examined as a witness, and hence adverse
inference ought to be drawn against the appellant-
claimants, is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Not
only is the owner-cum-driver not the author of the FIR,
but instead he is one of the contesting respondents in the
Claim Petition who, along with insurance company, is an
interested party with a pecuniary stake in the result of the
case. If the owner-cum-driver of the car were setting up a
defence plea that the accident was a result of not his but
the truck driver's carelessness or rashness, then the onus
was on him to step into the witness box and explain as to
how the accident had taken place. The fact that Sanjeev
Kapoor chose not to depose in support of what he has
pleaded in his written statement, further suggests that he
was himself at fault. The High Court, therefore, ought not
to have shifted the burden of proof.'
10 As discussed above, there is a delay of about one month and
three days in lodging the FIR, which has satisfactorily been explained by the
252 FAO-8891-2014 (O&M) -7-
claimant-appellants and hence the finding of the Tribunal in that regard is
erroneous.
11. In view of the above, the impugned award passed by the
Tribunal dismissing the claim petition of the claimant-appellants cannot be
sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to
the successor Presiding Officer of the Tribunal concerned for decision of the
claim petition afresh, on merits, in accordance with the law. Parties shall
appear before the Tribunal concerned on 07.04.2025 at 10.00 am.
12. Present appeal stands disposed off in the above terms. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
10.03.2025 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
