FAO-3375-2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Suleman Juber and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: DEEPAK GUPTA, J. award dated 27.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat, whereby his claim petition under Section Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed. 2. he was proceeding on foot along with his brother Sher Mohammad on Ghuspethi road, vehicle bearing registration No. HR respondent No.1, came from behind and struck him. According to the appellant, the accident resulted in serious injuries to him and ultimately amputation of his right leg. He claimed compensation of 3. denied the occurrence as pleaded, the involvement of the insured vehicle and the allegation of rash and negligent driving. 4. occurred on 05.10.2013 due to rash a 2015 Page N: 1 of total IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus Juber and others Reserved on: 09.09.2026 Pronounced on: 10.09.2026 Pronounced fully/operative part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate and Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 27.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat, whereby his claim petition under Section Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed. The appellant claimed that on 05.10.2013 at about 7.00 he was proceeding on foot along with his brother Sher Mohammad on Ghuspethi road, vehicle bearing registration No. HR respondent No.1, came from behind and struck him. According to the appellant, the accident resulted in serious injuries to him and ultimately amputation of his right leg. He claimed compensation of The respondents contested the cl denied the occurrence as pleaded, the involvement of the insured vehicle and the allegation of rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred on 05.10.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR of total 5 Pages IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3375-2015 ...Appellant ...Respondents 09.09.2026 10.09.2026 Pronounced fully/operative part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate and Insurance Company. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 27.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat, whereby his claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor The appellant claimed that on 05.10.2013 at about 7.00 PM, while he was proceeding on foot along with his brother Sher Mohammad on Ghuspethi road, vehicle bearing registration No. HR-74A-2121, driven by respondent No.1, came from behind and struck him. According to the appellant, the accident resulted in serious injuries to him and ultimately amputation of his right leg. He claimed compensation of ₹40 lakhs. The respondents contested the claim. The insurer specifically denied the occurrence as pleaded, the involvement of the insured vehicle and the allegation of rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had nd negligent driving of vehicle No. HR The present appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 27.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims 166 of the Motor , while he was proceeding on foot along with his brother Sher Mohammad on driven by respondent No.1, came from behind and struck him. According to the appellant, the accident resulted in serious injuries to him and ultimately aim. The insurer specifically denied the occurrence as pleaded, the involvement of the insured vehicle and The Tribunal framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had nd negligent driving of vehicle No. HR- YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.10 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3375-2015 74A-2121 by respondent No.1. The claimant examined himself as PW also examined, inter alia, his brother Sher Mohammad and a doctor. The respondents did not lead any evidence. 5. against the claimant on Issue No.1. The material circumstances noticed by the Tribunal were the delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of any medico report at the first hospital, the fact that the claimant remained a intervening periods between his hospital admissions without lodging any report, and the circumstances surrounding the identification of the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. appellant submits that the finding is unsustainable as the claimant had suffered serious injuries and remained under treatment for a considerable period. It is argued that the delay in lodging the FIR could not have been made the basis for rejecting the clai brother, coupled with the medical record, was sufficient to establish the accident. 7. award. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not dismis because of delay in lodging the FIR. Rather, the finding is based upon the cumulative effect of several circumstances, which materially affect the credibility of the appellant's version and, in particular, the alleged involvement of the insured vehicle. 8. this Court is of the view that the appeal does not merit 9. before the Motor Accident Cl claimant is required to establish his case on the touchstone of of probabilities Court has consistently so held in 2015 Page N: 2 of total 2121 by respondent No.1. The claimant examined himself as PW also examined, inter alia, his brother Sher Mohammad and a doctor. The respondents did not lead any evidence. The Tribunal, after considerin against the claimant on Issue No.1. The material circumstances noticed by the Tribunal were the delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of any medico report at the first hospital, the fact that the claimant remained a intervening periods between his hospital admissions without lodging any report, and the circumstances surrounding the identification of the owner of the offending vehicle. Assailing the finding of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the pellant submits that the finding is unsustainable as the claimant had suffered serious injuries and remained under treatment for a considerable period. It is argued that the delay in lodging the FIR could not have been made the basis for rejecting the claim and that the evidence of the claimant and his brother, coupled with the medical record, was sufficient to establish the Learned counsel appearing for the insurer supports the impugned award. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not dismis because of delay in lodging the FIR. Rather, the finding is based upon the cumulative effect of several circumstances, which materially affect the credibility of the appellant's version and, in particular, the alleged involvement e insured vehicle. Having considered the rival submissions and examined the award, this Court is of the view that the appeal does not merit There can be no dispute with the proposition that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and that the claimant is required to establish his case on the touchstone of of probabilities, and not beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently so held in Bimla Devi v. Himachal R of total 5 Pages 2121 by respondent No.1. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and also examined, inter alia, his brother Sher Mohammad and a doctor. The The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, returned a finding against the claimant on Issue No.1. The material circumstances noticed by the Tribunal were the delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of any medico-legal report at the first hospital, the fact that the claimant remained at home during intervening periods between his hospital admissions without lodging any report, and the circumstances surrounding the identification of the owner of Assailing the finding of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the pellant submits that the finding is unsustainable as the claimant had suffered serious injuries and remained under treatment for a considerable period. It is argued that the delay in lodging the FIR could not have been made m and that the evidence of the claimant and his brother, coupled with the medical record, was sufficient to establish the Learned counsel appearing for the insurer supports the impugned award. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not dismissed the claim merely because of delay in lodging the FIR. Rather, the finding is based upon the cumulative effect of several circumstances, which materially affect the credibility of the appellant's version and, in particular, the alleged involvement Having considered the rival submissions and examined the award, this Court is of the view that the appeal does not merit any acceptance. There can be no dispute with the proposition that proceedings aims Tribunal are summary in nature and that the claimant is required to establish his case on the touchstone of preponderance , and not beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport 1 and also examined, inter alia, his brother Sher Mohammad and a doctor. The g the evidence, returned a finding against the claimant on Issue No.1. The material circumstances noticed by the legal t home during intervening periods between his hospital admissions without lodging any report, and the circumstances surrounding the identification of the owner of Assailing the finding of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the pellant submits that the finding is unsustainable as the claimant had suffered serious injuries and remained under treatment for a considerable period. It is argued that the delay in lodging the FIR could not have been made m and that the evidence of the claimant and his brother, coupled with the medical record, was sufficient to establish the Learned counsel appearing for the insurer supports the impugned sed the claim merely because of delay in lodging the FIR. Rather, the finding is based upon the cumulative effect of several circumstances, which materially affect the credibility of the appellant's version and, in particular, the alleged involvement Having considered the rival submissions and examined the award, There can be no dispute with the proposition that proceedings aims Tribunal are summary in nature and that the preponderance , and not beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme oad Transport YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.10 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3375-2015 Corporation Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 standard applicable to a criminal prosecution. 10. cannot, by itself, be a ground for rejecting a genuine motor accident claim. In Ravi v. Badrinarayan in cases of delayed FIR, the evidence the delay cannot be treated as fatal where the claimant furnishes a satisfactory explanation and the evidence otherwise inspires confidence. 11. case is to be disregarded irrespective of the surrounding circumstances. The ultimate question remains whether, on a cumulative assessment of the evidence, the claimant has established, on a preponderance of probabilities, that the particular vehicle was in occurred due to the negligence of its driver. 12. 05.10.2013, whereas the FIR was registered only on 11.11.2013. The explanation offered was medical record, however, as noticed by the Tribunal, shows that the appellant, after his admission of 05.10.2013, was discharged from Gopi Nath Hospital on 07.10.2013, remained at home till 14.10.2013, was t Ahmad Hospital on 28.10.2013 and again remained at home till 09.11.2013 before being admitted on 09.11.2013 and discharged on 11.11.2013. No report was lodged during either of these intervening periods. 13. non-medico by itself, would certainly not conclude the matter, but it assumes significance when considered along with the other circumstances n 14. more significant. The appellant, while appearing as PW driver and owner were not known to him. His brother Sher Mohammad also 2015 Page N: 3 of total Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530 and Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier , (2013) 10 SCC 646. The Tribunal, therefore, cannot apply the strict standard applicable to a criminal prosecution. Equally, it is well settled that mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot, by itself, be a ground for rejecting a genuine motor accident claim. In Ravi v. Badrinarayan, (2011) 4 SCC 693, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in cases of delayed FIR, the evidence has to be scrutinised more carefully and the delay cannot be treated as fatal where the claimant furnishes a satisfactory explanation and the evidence otherwise inspires confidence. However, the aforesaid principles do not mean that delay in every ase is to be disregarded irrespective of the surrounding circumstances. The ultimate question remains whether, on a cumulative assessment of the evidence, the claimant has established, on a preponderance of probabilities, that the particular vehicle was involved in the accident and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of its driver. In the present case, the accident is alleged to have taken place on 05.10.2013, whereas the FIR was registered only on 11.11.2013. The explanation offered was that the appellant remained under treatment. The medical record, however, as noticed by the Tribunal, shows that the appellant, after his admission of 05.10.2013, was discharged from Gopi Nath Hospital on 07.10.2013, remained at home till 14.10.2013, was t Ahmad Hospital on 28.10.2013 and again remained at home till 09.11.2013 before being admitted on 09.11.2013 and discharged on 11.11.2013. No report was lodged during either of these intervening periods. More importantly, the initial hospital record treated the case as a medico-legal case and no ruqa was sent to the police. This circumstance, by itself, would certainly not conclude the matter, but it assumes significance when considered along with the other circumstances n The circumstance concerning the identity of the owner is still more significant. The appellant, while appearing as PW driver and owner were not known to him. His brother Sher Mohammad also of total 5 Pages Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier . The Tribunal, therefore, cannot apply the strict standard applicable to a criminal prosecution. Equally, it is well settled that mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot, by itself, be a ground for rejecting a genuine motor accident claim. In the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that has to be scrutinised more carefully and the delay cannot be treated as fatal where the claimant furnishes a satisfactory explanation and the evidence otherwise inspires confidence. However, the aforesaid principles do not mean that delay in every ase is to be disregarded irrespective of the surrounding circumstances. The ultimate question remains whether, on a cumulative assessment of the evidence, the claimant has established, on a preponderance of probabilities, volved in the accident and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of its driver. In the present case, the accident is alleged to have taken place on 05.10.2013, whereas the FIR was registered only on 11.11.2013. The that the appellant remained under treatment. The medical record, however, as noticed by the Tribunal, shows that the appellant, after his admission of 05.10.2013, was discharged from Gopi Nath Hospital on 07.10.2013, remained at home till 14.10.2013, was thereafter discharged from Ahmad Hospital on 28.10.2013 and again remained at home till 09.11.2013 before being admitted on 09.11.2013 and discharged on 11.11.2013. No report was lodged during either of these intervening periods. initial hospital record treated the case as a legal case and no ruqa was sent to the police. This circumstance, by itself, would certainly not conclude the matter, but it assumes significance when considered along with the other circumstances noticed by the Tribunal. The circumstance concerning the identity of the owner is still more significant. The appellant, while appearing as PW-1, stated that the driver and owner were not known to him. His brother Sher Mohammad also Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier . The Tribunal, therefore, cannot apply the strict Equally, it is well settled that mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot, by itself, be a ground for rejecting a genuine motor accident claim. In the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that has to be scrutinised more carefully and the delay cannot be treated as fatal where the claimant furnishes a However, the aforesaid principles do not mean that delay in every ase is to be disregarded irrespective of the surrounding circumstances. The ultimate question remains whether, on a cumulative assessment of the evidence, the claimant has established, on a preponderance of probabilities, volved in the accident and that the accident In the present case, the accident is alleged to have taken place on 05.10.2013, whereas the FIR was registered only on 11.11.2013. The that the appellant remained under treatment. The medical record, however, as noticed by the Tribunal, shows that the appellant, after his admission of 05.10.2013, was discharged from Gopi Nath Hospital on hereafter discharged from Ahmad Hospital on 28.10.2013 and again remained at home till 09.11.2013 before being admitted on 09.11.2013 and discharged on 11.11.2013. No initial hospital record treated the case as a legal case and no ruqa was sent to the police. This circumstance, by itself, would certainly not conclude the matter, but it assumes significance oticed by the Tribunal. The circumstance concerning the identity of the owner is still 1, stated that the driver and owner were not known to him. His brother Sher Mohammad also YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.10 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3375-2015 stated that they w registered owner was a resident of the same village and the summons on record showed that Sher Mohammad himself had received the summons while stating that the owner was his nephew. 15. The claimant's case is that his brother was accompanying him and had witnessed the accident. If that were so, the subsequent assertion that neither the owner nor the driver was known to them, when the o close relation and co entitled to take into consideration while assessing the credibility of the claimant's version. 16. eyewitness Sher Mohammad, despite being present according to the claimant's own case, did not lodge any report during the period between the accident and 11.11.2013. The explanation that he was attending the injured was examined by the Tribunal with refe showed that other persons were attending the claimant during the relevant periods. 17. was a delay in lodging the FIR. The finding is based upon the of the delayed FIR, the absence of an initial medico failure to lodge a report during the periods when the claimant was admittedly out of hospital, the conduct of the alleged eyewitness, and the material circumstance relating to the identity of the owner. 18. the absence of defence evidence cannot relieve the claimant of the initial burden of establishing the foundational facts of his claim. The claim required to establish not merely that he had suffered serious injuries, but also that such injuries were caused in an accident involving the particular vehicle insured with respondent No.3. 2015 Page N: 4 of total stated that they were not known to him prior to the accident. However, the registered owner was a resident of the same village and the summons on record showed that Sher Mohammad himself had received the summons while stating that the owner was his nephew. This material contradiction is not a mere technical discrepancy. The claimant's case is that his brother was accompanying him and had witnessed the accident. If that were so, the subsequent assertion that neither the owner nor the driver was known to them, when the o close relation and co-villager, was a circumstance, which the Tribunal was entitled to take into consideration while assessing the credibility of the claimant's version. The Court is also unable to ignore the fact that the allege eyewitness Sher Mohammad, despite being present according to the claimant's own case, did not lodge any report during the period between the accident and 11.11.2013. The explanation that he was attending the injured was examined by the Tribunal with reference to the hospital record, which showed that other persons were attending the claimant during the relevant Thus, the Tribunal did not reject the claim merely because there was a delay in lodging the FIR. The finding is based upon the of the delayed FIR, the absence of an initial medico failure to lodge a report during the periods when the claimant was admittedly out of hospital, the conduct of the alleged eyewitness, and the material ce relating to the identity of the owner. It is true that the respondents did not lead evidence. However, the absence of defence evidence cannot relieve the claimant of the initial burden of establishing the foundational facts of his claim. The claim required to establish not merely that he had suffered serious injuries, but also that such injuries were caused in an accident involving the particular vehicle insured with respondent No.3. of total 5 Pages ere not known to him prior to the accident. However, the registered owner was a resident of the same village and the summons on record showed that Sher Mohammad himself had received the summons while stating that the owner was his nephew. al contradiction is not a mere technical discrepancy. The claimant's case is that his brother was accompanying him and had witnessed the accident. If that were so, the subsequent assertion that neither the owner nor the driver was known to them, when the owner was allegedly a villager, was a circumstance, which the Tribunal was entitled to take into consideration while assessing the credibility of the The Court is also unable to ignore the fact that the allege eyewitness Sher Mohammad, despite being present according to the claimant's own case, did not lodge any report during the period between the accident and 11.11.2013. The explanation that he was attending the injured rence to the hospital record, which showed that other persons were attending the claimant during the relevant Thus, the Tribunal did not reject the claim merely because there was a delay in lodging the FIR. The finding is based upon the cumulative effect of the delayed FIR, the absence of an initial medico-legal case, the unexplained failure to lodge a report during the periods when the claimant was admittedly out of hospital, the conduct of the alleged eyewitness, and the material ce relating to the identity of the owner. It is true that the respondents did not lead evidence. However, the absence of defence evidence cannot relieve the claimant of the initial burden of establishing the foundational facts of his claim. The claimant was required to establish not merely that he had suffered serious injuries, but also that such injuries were caused in an accident involving the particular vehicle ere not known to him prior to the accident. However, the registered owner was a resident of the same village and the summons on record showed that Sher Mohammad himself had received the summons al contradiction is not a mere technical discrepancy. The claimant's case is that his brother was accompanying him and had witnessed the accident. If that were so, the subsequent assertion that neither wner was allegedly a villager, was a circumstance, which the Tribunal was entitled to take into consideration while assessing the credibility of the The Court is also unable to ignore the fact that the alleged eyewitness Sher Mohammad, despite being present according to the claimant's own case, did not lodge any report during the period between the accident and 11.11.2013. The explanation that he was attending the injured rence to the hospital record, which showed that other persons were attending the claimant during the relevant Thus, the Tribunal did not reject the claim merely because there lative effect legal case, the unexplained failure to lodge a report during the periods when the claimant was admittedly out of hospital, the conduct of the alleged eyewitness, and the material It is true that the respondents did not lead evidence. However, the absence of defence evidence cannot relieve the claimant of the initial ant was required to establish not merely that he had suffered serious injuries, but also that such injuries were caused in an accident involving the particular vehicle YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.10 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3375-2015 19. underwent amputation is undoubtedly a matter of concern. The medical record may establish the factum and seriousness of the injuries. It does not, however, by itself establish the involvement of vehicle No. HR accident. 20. that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse or based upon an impermissible standard of proof. There is no ground for interference in appeal, where the view taken by the Tribunal is a by the circumstances appearing on record. 21. the Tribunal that the vehicle was definitely “planted” is somewhat categorical. It is not necessary for this The claim can be dismissed on the narrower and legally sufficient ground that the appellant failed to establish, on a preponderance of probabilities, the involvement of the insured vehicle in the acc 22. assessment of compensation does not arise. The Tribunal rightly treated Issue No.2 as having become redundant after deciding Issue No.1 against the claimant. 23. interfere with the impugned award dated 27.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat. The appeal is accordingly 24. of. 10.09.2026 Yogesh Uploaded on: 2015 Page N: 5 of total The fact that the claimant suffered serious injuries underwent amputation is undoubtedly a matter of concern. The medical record may establish the factum and seriousness of the injuries. It does not, however, by itself establish the involvement of vehicle No. HR On a holistic consideration of the evidence, this Court cannot hold that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse or based upon an impermissible standard of proof. There is no ground for interference in appeal, where the view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonably possible view supported by the circumstances appearing on record. It would, however, be appropriate to observe that the finding of the Tribunal that the vehicle was definitely “planted” is somewhat categorical. It is not necessary for this Court to affirm such a positive finding of fabrication. The claim can be dismissed on the narrower and legally sufficient ground that the appellant failed to establish, on a preponderance of probabilities, the involvement of the insured vehicle in the acc Once the finding on Issue No.1 is maintained, the question of assessment of compensation does not arise. The Tribunal rightly treated Issue No.2 as having become redundant after deciding Issue No.1 against the For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned award dated 27.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat. The appeal is accordingly Pending miscellaneous application(s), if .09.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Uploaded on: 10.09.2026 of total 5 Pages The fact that the claimant suffered serious injuries underwent amputation is undoubtedly a matter of concern. The medical record may establish the factum and seriousness of the injuries. It does not, however, by itself establish the involvement of vehicle No. HR-74A-2121 in the holistic consideration of the evidence, this Court cannot hold that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse or based upon an impermissible standard of proof. There is no ground for interference in appeal, reasonably possible view supported It would, however, be appropriate to observe that the finding of the Tribunal that the vehicle was definitely “planted” is somewhat categorical. Court to affirm such a positive finding of fabrication. The claim can be dismissed on the narrower and legally sufficient ground that the appellant failed to establish, on a preponderance of probabilities, the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident alleged by him. Once the finding on Issue No.1 is maintained, the question of assessment of compensation does not arise. The Tribunal rightly treated Issue No.2 as having become redundant after deciding Issue No.1 against the r the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned award dated 27.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat. The appeal is accordingly dismissed Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No and underwent amputation is undoubtedly a matter of concern. The medical record may establish the factum and seriousness of the injuries. It does not, 2121 in the holistic consideration of the evidence, this Court cannot hold that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse or based upon an impermissible standard of proof. There is no ground for interference in appeal, reasonably possible view supported It would, however, be appropriate to observe that the finding of the Tribunal that the vehicle was definitely “planted” is somewhat categorical. Court to affirm such a positive finding of fabrication. The claim can be dismissed on the narrower and legally sufficient ground that the appellant failed to establish, on a preponderance of probabilities, the Once the finding on Issue No.1 is maintained, the question of assessment of compensation does not arise. The Tribunal rightly treated Issue No.2 as having become redundant after deciding Issue No.1 against the r the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned award dated 27.03.2015 passed by the learned dismissed. any, shall stand disposed YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.10 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document