IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 232 IOIN-1-FAO-1820-2005 in/and FAO-1820-2005 Date of Decision.: 09.04.2026 Prem Thakur …..Appellant Vs. Gobind Ram and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Abhinav Kansal, Advocate for Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate with Ms. Ayushi Jain, Advocate for the Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal is directed against the award dated 04.01.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat, whereby the claim pe,,on filed by the appellant–claimant, Prem Thakur, under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, came to be dismissed. 2. As per the case set up by the appellant, on 24.10.1999, he was proceeding on his scooter towards Sector-15, Sonipat, to visit his brother. When he reached near Geeta Bhawan Chowk and was turning towards Sector-14, a truck bearing registra,on No. HYS-283, allegedly driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck his scooter. As a result, the appellant sustained mul,ple injuries, par,cularly on his le: foot. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid allega,ons, the appellant ins,tuted a claim pe,,on under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-1-FAO-1820-2005 in/and FAO-1820-2005 seeking compensa,on from the driver-cum-owner, registered owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. The claim pe,,on was contested by the respondents by filing wri=en statement, wherein the occurrence of the accident itself was denied. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 were, however, proceeded against ex parte. Upon considera,on of the pleadings, issues were framed and evidence was led by the par,es. The learned Tribunal, a:er apprecia,ng the material on record, dismissed the claim pe,,on. 5. Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant : Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim pe,,on by mis-apprecia,ng the evidence available on record. It is argued that the tes,mony of the claimant and other witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence, sufficiently established the occurrence of the accident and the injuries suffered. It is further contended that non- registra,on of an FIR cannot, by itself, be a ground to disbelieve the claim, as lodging of FIR is not a sine qua non for maintaining a pe,,on under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Consideraon by this court : This Court has considered the submissions advanced and has perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the par,es. 7. To substan,ate his case, the appellant examined four witnesses. PW-1 Dr. K.K. Dua deposed regarding the injuries sustained and proved the treatment slip (Ex.P1), discharge summary (Ex.P2) and OPD slip (Ex.P3). PW-2 Vinod Kumar proved certain photographs. PW-3 Lekh Raj was examined as an alleged eyewitness, and the appellant himself stepped into the witness box as PW-4. 8. It is well se=led that proceedings under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are in the nature of summary proceedings and the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probabili,es. At the same ,me, the claimant is required to establish, through cogent and Page No. 2 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-1-FAO-1820-2005 in/and FAO-1820-2005 reliable evidence, that the injuries were sustained in a motor vehicular accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 9. It is true, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant, that registra,on of an FIR is not a mandatory requirement for maintaining a claim under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the absence of an FIR assumes significance, when considered in conjunc,on with other a=ending circumstances. 10. In the present case, the alleged accident is stated to have taken place on 24.10.1999 at a busy chowk within the municipal limits of Sonipat. The appellant claims to have suffered serious injuries, including a crushed injury to the foot. Despite this, no report was lodged with the police, nor is there any material to indicate that any in,ma,on of the accident was given to any authority. Even more significantly, the claim pe,,on itself came to be filed a:er an inordinate delay of approximately one and a half years, i.e., on 14.06.2001. 11. In the absence of any plausible explana,on for such non- repor,ng and delay, the Tribunal was jus,fied in adop,ng a cau,ous approach while evalua,ng the evidence. 12. A cri,cal examina,on of the medical evidence further weakens the case of the appellant. The treatment slip (Ex.P1), discharge summary (Ex.P2) and OPD slip (Ex.P3), proved through PW-1 Dr. K.K. Dua, do not contain any reference whatsoever to the injuries having been sustained in a road traffic accident. The discharge summary merely records that the appellant was admi=ed on 24.10.1999 with a crushed injury of the le: foot with bleeding. There is a conspicuous absence of any history of a vehicular accident, which ordinarily forms an integral part of medico-legal documenta,on, par,cularly in cases of serious injuries. 13. In such circumstances, the subsequent oral asser,on of PW-1 that the injuries were sustained in a roadside accident does not inspire confidence, being clearly inconsistent with the contemporaneous medical Page No. 3 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-1-FAO-1820-2005 in/and FAO-1820-2005 record. It appears that the said statement is an a:erthought and does not carry eviden,ary weight. 14. It is also noteworthy that the appellant himself is a medical prac,,oner. In the ordinary course of human conduct, a person with medical knowledge and awareness would ensure that the cause of injuries is duly recorded in medical documents, especially where the injuries are allegedly the result of a motor vehicular accident giving rise to a compensa,on claim. The absence of such crucial details in the medical record casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the claim set up by the appellant. 15. It is well se=led that although the standard of proof in motor accident claim cases is not as stringent as in criminal proceedings, the claimant is nevertheless required to present a coherent and credible version of events so as to establish his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabili,es. 16. In the present case, the cumula,ve effect of the material on record—namely, non-repor,ng of the accident to the police, unexplained delay in filing the claim pe,,on, absence of any reference to a road traffic accident in the contemporaneous medical record, and inconsistency between the oral and documentary evidence—leads to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the injuries were sustained in a motor vehicular accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 16. 16. Undoubtedly, a liberal approach is to be adopted while adjudica,ng claims under the Motor Vehicles Act; however, such an approach cannot extend to accep,ng a version which remains unsubstan,ated by founda,onal evidence. In the facts of the present case, the absence of prompt repor,ng and lack of medical corrobora,on cast a reasonable doubt on the manner of occurrence of the accident as alleged, thereby rendering the claim unworthy of acceptance. Page No. 4 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-1-FAO-1820-2005 in/and FAO-1820-2005 17. In this backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has not commi=ed any illegality or perversity in holding that the claimant failed to establish that the injuries were sustained on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The findings recorded are based on proper apprecia,on of evidence and do not call for interference in appellate jurisdic,on. 18. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applica,ons, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 09, 2026 Nee,ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 5 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document