FAO-4919-2017 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Karan Singh and another Surender and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK Present: Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate for the appellants. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This appeal has been filed by the claimants assailing the award dated 01.11.2016 passed by learned MACT, Hisar, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants u seeking compensation on account of death of Bijender in a motor vehicular accident, was dismissed. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application bearing 2017 under Section 5 of the Limitation days in filing the appeal. 3. Heard on the application. For the reasons stated therein, duly supported by the affidavit of appellant No.1 allowed. Delay of 105 days in filing the app FAO-4919-2017 4. The accident in question took place on 30.11.2014 near the bus stop, Gujjar Bara, Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar, in which Bijender subsequently succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The appellants, being the father and sister of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of car bearing registration No.HR involved in the accident. 2017 (O&M) Page N: 1 of Total 7 Pages IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO Date of Decision: 0 Karan Singh and another Versus Surender and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This appeal has been filed by the claimants assailing the award dated 01.11.2016 passed by learned MACT, Hisar, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of death of Bijender in a motor vehicular accident, was dismissed. The appeal is accompanied by an application bearing under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. Heard on the application. For the reasons stated therein, duly supported by the affidavit of appellant No.1 allowed. Delay of 105 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2017 The accident in question took place on 30.11.2014 near the bus stop, Gujjar Bara, Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar, in which Bijender subsequently succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The appellants, being the father and sister of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of car bearing registration No.HR-20AA-0801, alleging that the said vehicle was e accident. of Total 7 Pages IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4919-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 ...Appellants ...Respondents GUPTA Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate for the appellants. This appeal has been filed by the claimants assailing the award dated 01.11.2016 passed by learned MACT, Hisar, whereby the claim petition nder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of death of Bijender in a motor vehicular The appeal is accompanied by an application bearing CM-14945 Act seeking condonation of delay of 105 Heard on the application. For the reasons stated therein, duly supported by the affidavit of appellant No.1-Karan Singh, the application is eal is condoned. The accident in question took place on 30.11.2014 near the bus stop, Gujjar Bara, Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar, in which Bijender subsequently succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The appellants, being the father and sister of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer 0801, alleging that the said vehicle was This appeal has been filed by the claimants assailing the award dated 01.11.2016 passed by learned MACT, Hisar, whereby the claim petition nder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of death of Bijender in a motor vehicular 14945-CII- Act seeking condonation of delay of 105 Heard on the application. For the reasons stated therein, duly Karan Singh, the application is The accident in question took place on 30.11.2014 near the bus stop, Gujjar Bara, Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar, in which Bijender subsequently succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The appellants, being the father and sister of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer 0801, alleging that the said vehicle was YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.03 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4919-2017 (O&M) 5. The case set up by the claimants was that on 30.11.2014, Bijender, along with Deepak, was returning from the farm house towards his village on a motorcycle being driven by Bijender. When they reached near village Gujjar Bara, the offending negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and struck against their motorcycle. As a result, both Bijender and Deepak fell down and sustained injuries. They were initially taken to CMC Ho serious condition of Bijender, he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, Gurgaon, where he died on 05.12.2014. 6. Respondents No.1 and 2, namely, the driver and owner of the alleged offending vehicle, denied the occurrence as implication. Respondent No.3 its liability. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed and evidence was led. Though the Tribunal assessed the compensation, whi otherwise have been payable, the claim petition was ultimately dismissed on account of the finding on the fundamental issue of involvement of the alleged offending vehicle and negligence of its driver. The Tribunal found that the claimants had fai vehicle bearing registration No.HR 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the aforesaid finding primarily on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the testimony o PW2-Deepak, who was travelling with the deceased and was projected as an eye witness to the occurrence. 9. Having considered the submission and examined the record, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. 10. It is well settled that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are not governed by the strict rules of proof applicable to a criminal trial and the claimants are required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of 2017 (O&M) Page N: 2 of Total 7 Pages The case set up by the claimants was that on 30.11.2014, Bijender, along with Deepak, was returning from the farm house towards his village on a motorcycle being driven by Bijender. When they reached near village Gujjar Bara, the offending car, allegedly being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and struck against their motorcycle. As a result, both Bijender and Deepak fell down and sustained injuries. They were initially taken to CMC Hospital, Hisar and, on account of the serious condition of Bijender, he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, Gurgaon, where he died on 05.12.2014. Respondents No.1 and 2, namely, the driver and owner of the alleged offending vehicle, denied the occurrence as implication. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company also denied the accident and On the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed and evidence was led. Though the Tribunal assessed the compensation, whi otherwise have been payable, the claim petition was ultimately dismissed on account of the finding on the fundamental issue of involvement of the alleged offending vehicle and negligence of its driver. The Tribunal found that the claimants had failed to establish that the accident had been caused by the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-20AA-0801. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the aforesaid finding primarily on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the testimony o Deepak, who was travelling with the deceased and was projected as an eye witness to the occurrence. Having considered the submission and examined the record, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the conclusion reached by the It is well settled that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are not governed by the strict rules of proof applicable to a criminal trial and the claimants are required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. At the same time, the foundational facts of Total 7 Pages The case set up by the claimants was that on 30.11.2014, Bijender, along with Deepak, was returning from the farm house towards his village on a motorcycle being driven by Bijender. When they reached near village Gujjar Bara, car, allegedly being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and struck against their motorcycle. As a result, both Bijender and Deepak fell down and sustained spital, Hisar and, on account of the serious condition of Bijender, he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, Gurgaon, where Respondents No.1 and 2, namely, the driver and owner of the alleged offending vehicle, denied the occurrence as alleged and pleaded false Insurance Company also denied the accident and On the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed and evidence was led. Though the Tribunal assessed the compensation, which would otherwise have been payable, the claim petition was ultimately dismissed on account of the finding on the fundamental issue of involvement of the alleged offending vehicle and negligence of its driver. The Tribunal found that the led to establish that the accident had been caused by the 0801. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the aforesaid finding primarily on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the testimony o Deepak, who was travelling with the deceased and was projected as an eye Having considered the submission and examined the record, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the conclusion reached by the It is well settled that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are not governed by the strict rules of proof applicable to a criminal trial and the claimants are required to establish their case on the touchstone of probabilities. At the same time, the foundational facts The case set up by the claimants was that on 30.11.2014, Bijender, along with Deepak, was returning from the farm house towards his village on a motorcycle being driven by Bijender. When they reached near village Gujjar Bara, car, allegedly being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and struck against their motorcycle. As a result, both Bijender and Deepak fell down and sustained spital, Hisar and, on account of the serious condition of Bijender, he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, Gurgaon, where Respondents No.1 and 2, namely, the driver and owner of the alleged and pleaded false Insurance Company also denied the accident and On the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed and ch would otherwise have been payable, the claim petition was ultimately dismissed on account of the finding on the fundamental issue of involvement of the alleged offending vehicle and negligence of its driver. The Tribunal found that the led to establish that the accident had been caused by the Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the aforesaid finding primarily on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the testimony of Deepak, who was travelling with the deceased and was projected as an eye- Having considered the submission and examined the record, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the conclusion reached by the It is well settled that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are not governed by the strict rules of proof applicable to a criminal trial and the claimants are required to establish their case on the touchstone of probabilities. At the same time, the foundational facts YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.03 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4919-2017 (O&M) constituting the claim cannot be left to conjecture or speculation. In a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant has to establish, on the basis of the material on record, t the actionable negligence attributable to its driver. Where the very identity or involvement of the alleged offending vehicle is rendered doubtful by the claimant's own evidence, compensation cannot be awarded me accident resulting in death is otherwise established. 11. In the present case, the testimony of PW2 entire case regarding identification of the offending vehicle substantially rests, suffers from material inconsistenci Tribunal has noticed these aspects in detail. The relevant observations read as under:- “12. It is the case of the petitioners that on 30.11.2014 deceased Bijender alongwith Deepak (PW2) was returning from his fa motor-cycle in question, which was being driven by deceased Bijender. When they reached near village Gujjar Bara, in the meantime, the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from front side and struck against the motor they fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries on their persons and they were shifted in CMC Hospital, Hisar, however, due to serious condition of Bijender he was shifte to the injuries sustained in the accident on 05.12.2014. A perusal of police challan Ex. P2 reveals that in this case F.I.R. Ex. P1 was lodged by PW2 Deepak against the unknown vehicle and unnamed pers on 06.01.2015 police recorded the supplementary statement Ex. P4 under section 161 Cr. P.C. of Deepak implicating the offending vehicle in it. Although in this case PW2 Deepak when appeared in the witness box has stated that Santro car bearing registration HR negligent manner and struck against the motor examination this witness has stated that the name of driver came to his notice after 1-1 01.12.2014 and at that time he did not know the registration number of offending vehicle. On 06.01.2015 he informed the police regarding the complete 2017 (O&M) Page N: 3 of Total 7 Pages constituting the claim cannot be left to conjecture or speculation. In a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant has to establish, on the basis of the material on record, the involvement of the offending vehicle and the actionable negligence attributable to its driver. Where the very identity or involvement of the alleged offending vehicle is rendered doubtful by the claimant's own evidence, compensation cannot be awarded me accident resulting in death is otherwise established. In the present case, the testimony of PW2 entire case regarding identification of the offending vehicle substantially rests, suffers from material inconsistencies which go to the root of the matter. The Tribunal has noticed these aspects in detail. The relevant observations read as It is the case of the petitioners that on 30.11.2014 deceased Bijender alongwith Deepak (PW2) was returning from his fa cycle in question, which was being driven by deceased Bijender. When they reached near village Gujjar Bara, in the meantime, the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from t side and struck against the motor-cycle of Bijender. Due to this impact, they fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries on their persons and they were shifted in CMC Hospital, Hisar, however, due to serious condition of Bijender he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, Gurgaon where Bijender succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident on 05.12.2014. A perusal of police challan Ex. P2 reveals that in this case F.I.R. Ex. P1 was lodged by PW2 Deepak against the unknown vehicle and unnamed pers on 06.01.2015 police recorded the supplementary statement Ex. P4 under section 161 Cr. P.C. of Deepak implicating the offending vehicle in it. Although in this case PW2 Deepak when appeared in the witness box has stated that Santro car bearing registration HR-20AA-0801 came from front side in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the motor examination this witness has stated that the name of driver came to his notice 1-1/4 months of the accident. Police met him in the hospital on 01.12.2014 and at that time he did not know the registration number of offending vehicle. On 06.01.2015 he informed the police regarding the complete of Total 7 Pages constituting the claim cannot be left to conjecture or speculation. In a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant has to establish, on he involvement of the offending vehicle and the actionable negligence attributable to its driver. Where the very identity or involvement of the alleged offending vehicle is rendered doubtful by the claimant's own evidence, compensation cannot be awarded merely because an accident resulting in death is otherwise established. In the present case, the testimony of PW2-Deepak, on which the entire case regarding identification of the offending vehicle substantially rests, es which go to the root of the matter. The Tribunal has noticed these aspects in detail. The relevant observations read as It is the case of the petitioners that on 30.11.2014 deceased Bijender alongwith Deepak (PW2) was returning from his farm to his village on the cycle in question, which was being driven by deceased Bijender. When they reached near village Gujjar Bara, in the meantime, the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from cycle of Bijender. Due to this impact, they fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries on their persons and they were shifted in CMC Hospital, Hisar, however, due to serious condition of d to Fortis Hospital, Gurgaon where Bijender succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident on 05.12.2014. A perusal of police challan Ex. P2 reveals that in this case F.I.R. Ex. P1 was lodged by PW2 Deepak against the unknown vehicle and unnamed person on 01.12.2014 and thereafter on 06.01.2015 police recorded the supplementary statement Ex. P4 under section 161 Cr. P.C. of Deepak implicating the offending vehicle in it. Although in this case PW2 Deepak when appeared in the witness box has stated that 0801 came from front side in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the motor-cycle of deceased. In his cross examination this witness has stated that the name of driver came to his notice nths of the accident. Police met him in the hospital on 01.12.2014 and at that time he did not know the registration number of offending vehicle. On 06.01.2015 he informed the police regarding the complete constituting the claim cannot be left to conjecture or speculation. In a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant has to establish, on he involvement of the offending vehicle and the actionable negligence attributable to its driver. Where the very identity or involvement of the alleged offending vehicle is rendered doubtful by the rely because an Deepak, on which the entire case regarding identification of the offending vehicle substantially rests, es which go to the root of the matter. The Tribunal has noticed these aspects in detail. The relevant observations read as It is the case of the petitioners that on 30.11.2014 deceased Bijender rm to his village on the cycle in question, which was being driven by deceased Bijender. When they reached near village Gujjar Bara, in the meantime, the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from cycle of Bijender. Due to this impact, they fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries on their persons and they were shifted in CMC Hospital, Hisar, however, due to serious condition of d to Fortis Hospital, Gurgaon where Bijender succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident on 05.12.2014. A perusal of police challan Ex. P2 reveals that in this case F.I.R. Ex. P1 was lodged by PW2 Deepak on on 01.12.2014 and thereafter on 06.01.2015 police recorded the supplementary statement Ex. P4 under section 161 Cr. P.C. of Deepak implicating the offending vehicle in it. Although in this case PW2 Deepak when appeared in the witness box has stated that a 0801 came from front side in a rash and cycle of deceased. In his cross- examination this witness has stated that the name of driver came to his notice nths of the accident. Police met him in the hospital on 01.12.2014 and at that time he did not know the registration number of offending vehicle. On 06.01.2015 he informed the police regarding the complete YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.03 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4919-2017 (O&M) registration number of the offending vehicle and b the registration number of offending vehicle. Thus, from the cross of PW2 Deepak it emerges that this witness has not mentioned the source from where he came to know the name of driver or vehicle. Even in his suppleme about the registration number, make and name of driver of offending vehicle. 13. Further in this case PW2 Deepak has improved his version as a perusal of F.I.R. Ex. Pl reveals that on 30.11.20 Bijender was going towards Bus Stand, Gurjarwada, in the meanwhile a vehicle whose lights were on came from front side and lights of that vehicle fell on their eyes, in the meanwhile a vehicle being driven by its negligent manner and after hitting its side to them sped away from the spot, however, when PW2 Deepak appeared in the witness box has stated that the vehicle who struck against them had come from front side whereas there is no such mentioned in the F. I. R. 14. Moreover, respondent no.1 Surender belongs to village Jamavri and the deceased Bijender belonged to village Rajpura and both these villages are adjoining villages. Had the accident been caused by respondent no.1 then PW2 Deepak might have known the number of vehicle and name of driver as both are belonging to adjoining villages. This shows that respondent no.1 has been implicated by the petitioners only to claim compensation after a period of more than one month after the ac 12. The aforesaid reasoning cannot be said to be based on a hyper technical appreciation of evidence. The FIR was admittedly lodged by PW2 himself on 01.12.2014, i.e. immediately after the occurrence, but it was lodged against an unknown vehicle specifically admitted in his cross the hospital on 01.12.2014, he did not know either the registration number of the vehicle or the identity of its driver. It was only month after the occurrence, that he disclosed the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle to the police. 13. The material circumstance, therefore, is not merely the delay in naming the vehicle or its driver. What 2017 (O&M) Page N: 4 of Total 7 Pages registration number of the offending vehicle and b the registration number of offending vehicle. Thus, from the cross of PW2 Deepak it emerges that this witness has not mentioned the source from where he came to know the name of driver or vehicle. Even in his supplementary statement Ex. P4 he has not mentioned how he came to know about the registration number, make and name of driver of offending vehicle. Further in this case PW2 Deepak has improved his version as a perusal of F.I.R. Ex. Pl reveals that on 30.11.2014 at about 9.00 p.m. he alongwith deceased Bijender was going towards Bus Stand, Gurjarwada, in the meanwhile a vehicle whose lights were on came from front side and lights of that vehicle fell on their eyes, in the meanwhile a vehicle being driven by its negligent manner and after hitting its side to them sped away from the spot, however, when PW2 Deepak appeared in the witness box has stated that the vehicle who struck against them had come from front side whereas there is no ch mentioned in the F. I. R. Moreover, respondent no.1 Surender belongs to village Jamavri and the deceased Bijender belonged to village Rajpura and both these villages are adjoining villages. Had the accident been caused by respondent no.1 then PW2 epak might have known the number of vehicle and name of driver as both are belonging to adjoining villages. This shows that respondent no.1 has been implicated by the petitioners only to claim compensation after a period of more than one month after the accident.” The aforesaid reasoning cannot be said to be based on a hyper technical appreciation of evidence. The FIR was admittedly lodged by PW2 himself on 01.12.2014, i.e. immediately after the occurrence, but it was lodged against an unknown vehicle and an unknown person. More importantly, PW2 specifically admitted in his cross-examination that when the police met him in the hospital on 01.12.2014, he did not know either the registration number of the vehicle or the identity of its driver. It was only month after the occurrence, that he disclosed the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle to the police. The material circumstance, therefore, is not merely the delay in naming the vehicle or its driver. What assumes significance is that the person of Total 7 Pages registration number of the offending vehicle and before that he did not know the registration number of offending vehicle. Thus, from the cross-examination of PW2 Deepak it emerges that this witness has not mentioned the source from where he came to know the name of driver or vehicle. Even in his ntary statement Ex. P4 he has not mentioned how he came to know about the registration number, make and name of driver of offending vehicle. Further in this case PW2 Deepak has improved his version as a perusal of 14 at about 9.00 p.m. he alongwith deceased Bijender was going towards Bus Stand, Gurjarwada, in the meanwhile a vehicle whose lights were on came from front side and lights of that vehicle fell on their eyes, in the meanwhile a vehicle being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and after hitting its side to them sped away from the spot, however, when PW2 Deepak appeared in the witness box has stated that the vehicle who struck against them had come from front side whereas there is no Moreover, respondent no.1 Surender belongs to village Jamavri and the deceased Bijender belonged to village Rajpura and both these villages are adjoining villages. Had the accident been caused by respondent no.1 then PW2 epak might have known the number of vehicle and name of driver as both are belonging to adjoining villages. This shows that respondent no.1 has been implicated by the petitioners only to claim compensation after a period of more The aforesaid reasoning cannot be said to be based on a hyper technical appreciation of evidence. The FIR was admittedly lodged by PW2 himself on 01.12.2014, i.e. immediately after the occurrence, but it was lodged and an unknown person. More importantly, PW2 examination that when the police met him in the hospital on 01.12.2014, he did not know either the registration number of the vehicle or the identity of its driver. It was only on 06.01.2015, more than one month after the occurrence, that he disclosed the registration number of the The material circumstance, therefore, is not merely the delay in assumes significance is that the person efore that he did not know examination of PW2 Deepak it emerges that this witness has not mentioned the source from where he came to know the name of driver or vehicle. Even in his ntary statement Ex. P4 he has not mentioned how he came to know about the registration number, make and name of driver of offending vehicle. Further in this case PW2 Deepak has improved his version as a perusal of 14 at about 9.00 p.m. he alongwith deceased Bijender was going towards Bus Stand, Gurjarwada, in the meanwhile a vehicle whose lights were on came from front side and lights of that vehicle fell on their driver came in a rash and negligent manner and after hitting its side to them sped away from the spot, however, when PW2 Deepak appeared in the witness box has stated that the vehicle who struck against them had come from front side whereas there is no Moreover, respondent no.1 Surender belongs to village Jamavri and the deceased Bijender belonged to village Rajpura and both these villages are adjoining villages. Had the accident been caused by respondent no.1 then PW2 epak might have known the number of vehicle and name of driver as both are belonging to adjoining villages. This shows that respondent no.1 has been implicated by the petitioners only to claim compensation after a period of more The aforesaid reasoning cannot be said to be based on a hyper- technical appreciation of evidence. The FIR was admittedly lodged by PW2 himself on 01.12.2014, i.e. immediately after the occurrence, but it was lodged and an unknown person. More importantly, PW2 examination that when the police met him in the hospital on 01.12.2014, he did not know either the registration number of on 06.01.2015, more than one month after the occurrence, that he disclosed the registration number of the The material circumstance, therefore, is not merely the delay in assumes significance is that the person YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.03 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4919-2017 (O&M) projected as the eye the identity of the offending vehicle immediately after the accident, and no explanation whatsoever has been furnished as to how, subseq know its registration number, make or the identity of its driver. Neither the supplementary statement Ex.P the source of such information. In the absence of such explanation, the subsequent identification of a particular vehicle, after a considerable lapse of time, creates a serious doubt regarding its involvement. 14. The discrepancy is further aggravated by the contents of the FIR. The contemporaneous version was that a vehicle, whose the riders, struck their motorcycle and thereafter sped away. In his deposition before the Tribunal, however, PW2 attributed the occurrence specifically to Santro car No.HR respondent No.1. Thus, the later version is not merely an elaboration of the earlier account but introduces material particulars regarding the make, registration number and identity of the driver which were conspicuously absent from the earliest version g 15. It is true that an FIR is not substantive evidence of the facts stated therein and that some delay or omission in an FIR may, depending upon the circumstances, be satisfactorily explained. Equally, a witness cannot be disbelieved merely because every detail is not stated at the earliest opportunity. However, in the present case, the issue is not an isolated omission. The subsequent identification of the offending vehicle and its driver constitutes the very foundation of allegedly saw the accident has failed to explain the source of his subsequent knowledge. This circumstance assumes considerable significance when viewed along with the other inconsistencies noti 16. Another relevant circumstance is that the claimants did not examine the Investigating Officer to explain the circumstances, in which the alleged offending vehicle came to be identified and connected with the accident after more than a month. Had the investigation disclosed some independent material connecting car No.HR 2017 (O&M) Page N: 5 of Total 7 Pages projected as the eye-witness to the occurrence himself admittedly did not know the identity of the offending vehicle immediately after the accident, and no explanation whatsoever has been furnished as to how, subseq know its registration number, make or the identity of its driver. Neither the supplementary statement Ex.P-4 nor his deposition before the Tribunal discloses the source of such information. In the absence of such explanation, the ent identification of a particular vehicle, after a considerable lapse of time, creates a serious doubt regarding its involvement. The discrepancy is further aggravated by the contents of the FIR. The contemporaneous version was that a vehicle, whose the riders, struck their motorcycle and thereafter sped away. In his deposition before the Tribunal, however, PW2 attributed the occurrence specifically to Santro car No.HR-20AA-0801 coming from the front side and being driven by respondent No.1. Thus, the later version is not merely an elaboration of the earlier account but introduces material particulars regarding the make, registration number and identity of the driver which were conspicuously absent from the earliest version given by the alleged eye It is true that an FIR is not substantive evidence of the facts stated therein and that some delay or omission in an FIR may, depending upon the circumstances, be satisfactorily explained. Equally, a witness cannot be disbelieved merely because every detail is not stated at the earliest opportunity. However, in the present case, the issue is not an isolated omission. The subsequent identification of the offending vehicle and its driver constitutes the very foundation of the claim against respondents No.1 to 3, and the witness who allegedly saw the accident has failed to explain the source of his subsequent knowledge. This circumstance assumes considerable significance when viewed along with the other inconsistencies noticed by the Tribunal. Another relevant circumstance is that the claimants did not examine the Investigating Officer to explain the circumstances, in which the alleged offending vehicle came to be identified and connected with the accident after an a month. Had the investigation disclosed some independent material connecting car No.HR-20AA-0801 or respondent No.1 with the accident, the of Total 7 Pages witness to the occurrence himself admittedly did not know the identity of the offending vehicle immediately after the accident, and no explanation whatsoever has been furnished as to how, subsequently, he came to know its registration number, make or the identity of its driver. Neither the 4 nor his deposition before the Tribunal discloses the source of such information. In the absence of such explanation, the ent identification of a particular vehicle, after a considerable lapse of time, creates a serious doubt regarding its involvement. The discrepancy is further aggravated by the contents of the FIR. The contemporaneous version was that a vehicle, whose lights fell on the eyes of the riders, struck their motorcycle and thereafter sped away. In his deposition before the Tribunal, however, PW2 attributed the occurrence specifically to 0801 coming from the front side and being driven by respondent No.1. Thus, the later version is not merely an elaboration of the earlier account but introduces material particulars regarding the make, registration number and identity of the driver which were conspicuously absent iven by the alleged eye-witness. It is true that an FIR is not substantive evidence of the facts stated therein and that some delay or omission in an FIR may, depending upon the circumstances, be satisfactorily explained. Equally, a witness cannot be disbelieved merely because every detail is not stated at the earliest opportunity. However, in the present case, the issue is not an isolated omission. The subsequent identification of the offending vehicle and its driver constitutes the the claim against respondents No.1 to 3, and the witness who allegedly saw the accident has failed to explain the source of his subsequent knowledge. This circumstance assumes considerable significance when viewed ced by the Tribunal. Another relevant circumstance is that the claimants did not examine the Investigating Officer to explain the circumstances, in which the alleged offending vehicle came to be identified and connected with the accident after an a month. Had the investigation disclosed some independent material 0801 or respondent No.1 with the accident, the witness to the occurrence himself admittedly did not know the identity of the offending vehicle immediately after the accident, and no uently, he came to know its registration number, make or the identity of its driver. Neither the 4 nor his deposition before the Tribunal discloses the source of such information. In the absence of such explanation, the ent identification of a particular vehicle, after a considerable lapse of The discrepancy is further aggravated by the contents of the FIR. lights fell on the eyes of the riders, struck their motorcycle and thereafter sped away. In his deposition before the Tribunal, however, PW2 attributed the occurrence specifically to 0801 coming from the front side and being driven by respondent No.1. Thus, the later version is not merely an elaboration of the earlier account but introduces material particulars regarding the make, registration number and identity of the driver which were conspicuously absent It is true that an FIR is not substantive evidence of the facts stated therein and that some delay or omission in an FIR may, depending upon the circumstances, be satisfactorily explained. Equally, a witness cannot be disbelieved merely because every detail is not stated at the earliest opportunity. However, in the present case, the issue is not an isolated omission. The subsequent identification of the offending vehicle and its driver constitutes the the claim against respondents No.1 to 3, and the witness who allegedly saw the accident has failed to explain the source of his subsequent knowledge. This circumstance assumes considerable significance when viewed Another relevant circumstance is that the claimants did not examine the Investigating Officer to explain the circumstances, in which the alleged offending vehicle came to be identified and connected with the accident after an a month. Had the investigation disclosed some independent material 0801 or respondent No.1 with the accident, the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.03 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4919-2017 (O&M) same could have provided corroboration to the subsequent version of PW2. In the absence of such evidence, the fil police proceedings, by themselves, cannot conclusively establish the involvement of the vehicle in the motor accident claim proceedings. 17. The Tribunal has also noticed that respondent No.1 and deceased Bijender belonged to adjoining villages. Though this circumstance, by itself, would not be sufficient to disbelieve the claim, it assumes relevance in the overall evidentiary assessment. If PW2 had actually witnessed the accident and the driver was a person known o absence of his name or the vehicle number in the immediate version given to the police, followed by disclosure of these particulars after more than a month, called for a satisfactory explanation. No such explana 18. The jurisdiction exercised by this Court in an appeal against an award is undoubtedly wide enough to correct an erroneous appreciation of evidence. However, where the Tribunal has considered the material evidence, recorded reasons based on relevant circumstances emerging from the record, interference is not warranted merely because another view of the evidence may also be possible. The appellate court is required to exam unsupported by evidence or based on irrelevant considerations. No such infirmity is demonstrated in the present case. 19. Significantly, the Tribunal did not dismiss the claim for want of proof of death or injuries. It essential nexus between the accident and the vehicle sought to be fastened with liability had not been established. Once the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle itself remains unproved, the owner or insurer does not arise. 20. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the conclusion recorded by the learned Tribunal that the claimants failed to establish, on the touchstone of preponderance the accident in question, is a plausible and well 2017 (O&M) Page N: 6 of Total 7 Pages same could have provided corroboration to the subsequent version of PW2. In the absence of such evidence, the filing of a criminal case or the subsequent police proceedings, by themselves, cannot conclusively establish the involvement of the vehicle in the motor accident claim proceedings. The Tribunal has also noticed that respondent No.1 and deceased belonged to adjoining villages. Though this circumstance, by itself, would not be sufficient to disbelieve the claim, it assumes relevance in the overall evidentiary assessment. If PW2 had actually witnessed the accident and the driver was a person known or identifiable in the locality, the complete absence of his name or the vehicle number in the immediate version given to the police, followed by disclosure of these particulars after more than a month, called for a satisfactory explanation. No such explana The jurisdiction exercised by this Court in an appeal against an award is undoubtedly wide enough to correct an erroneous appreciation of evidence. However, where the Tribunal has considered the material evidence, recorded reasons for disbelieving the claimant's version and its conclusion is based on relevant circumstances emerging from the record, interference is not warranted merely because another view of the evidence may also be possible. The appellate court is required to examine whether the finding is perverse, unsupported by evidence or based on irrelevant considerations. No such infirmity is demonstrated in the present case. Significantly, the Tribunal did not dismiss the claim for want of proof of death or injuries. It proceeded to assess the compensation but found that the essential nexus between the accident and the vehicle sought to be fastened with liability had not been established. Once the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle itself remains unproved, the question of fastening liability upon its driver, owner or insurer does not arise. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the conclusion recorded by the learned Tribunal that the claimants failed to establish, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that vehicle No.HR the accident in question, is a plausible and well of Total 7 Pages same could have provided corroboration to the subsequent version of PW2. In ing of a criminal case or the subsequent police proceedings, by themselves, cannot conclusively establish the involvement of the vehicle in the motor accident claim proceedings. The Tribunal has also noticed that respondent No.1 and deceased belonged to adjoining villages. Though this circumstance, by itself, would not be sufficient to disbelieve the claim, it assumes relevance in the overall evidentiary assessment. If PW2 had actually witnessed the accident and r identifiable in the locality, the complete absence of his name or the vehicle number in the immediate version given to the police, followed by disclosure of these particulars after more than a month, called for a satisfactory explanation. No such explanation is forthcoming. The jurisdiction exercised by this Court in an appeal against an award is undoubtedly wide enough to correct an erroneous appreciation of evidence. However, where the Tribunal has considered the material evidence, for disbelieving the claimant's version and its conclusion is based on relevant circumstances emerging from the record, interference is not warranted merely because another view of the evidence may also be possible. ine whether the finding is perverse, unsupported by evidence or based on irrelevant considerations. No such Significantly, the Tribunal did not dismiss the claim for want of proof proceeded to assess the compensation but found that the essential nexus between the accident and the vehicle sought to be fastened with liability had not been established. Once the involvement of the alleged offending question of fastening liability upon its driver, In these circumstances, this Court finds that the conclusion recorded by the learned Tribunal that the claimants failed to establish, on the touchstone of probabilities, that vehicle No.HR-20AA-0801 was involved in the accident in question, is a plausible and well-reasoned conclusion based upon same could have provided corroboration to the subsequent version of PW2. In ing of a criminal case or the subsequent police proceedings, by themselves, cannot conclusively establish the involvement The Tribunal has also noticed that respondent No.1 and deceased belonged to adjoining villages. Though this circumstance, by itself, would not be sufficient to disbelieve the claim, it assumes relevance in the overall evidentiary assessment. If PW2 had actually witnessed the accident and r identifiable in the locality, the complete absence of his name or the vehicle number in the immediate version given to the police, followed by disclosure of these particulars after more than a month, The jurisdiction exercised by this Court in an appeal against an award is undoubtedly wide enough to correct an erroneous appreciation of evidence. However, where the Tribunal has considered the material evidence, for disbelieving the claimant's version and its conclusion is based on relevant circumstances emerging from the record, interference is not warranted merely because another view of the evidence may also be possible. ine whether the finding is perverse, unsupported by evidence or based on irrelevant considerations. No such Significantly, the Tribunal did not dismiss the claim for want of proof proceeded to assess the compensation but found that the essential nexus between the accident and the vehicle sought to be fastened with liability had not been established. Once the involvement of the alleged offending question of fastening liability upon its driver, In these circumstances, this Court finds that the conclusion recorded by the learned Tribunal that the claimants failed to establish, on the touchstone 0801 was involved in reasoned conclusion based upon YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.03 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4919-2017 (O&M) the evidence available on record. No perversity or material illegality has been pointed out warranting interfere 21. Consequently, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. The award dated 01.11.2016 passed by learned MACT, Hisar, is upheld. 03.09.2026 Yogesh Whether Whether reportable: 2017 (O&M) Page N: 7 of Total 7 Pages the evidence available on record. No perversity or material illegality has been pointed out warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. The award dated 01.11.2016 passed by learned MACT, Hisar, is Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No of Total 7 Pages the evidence available on record. No perversity or material illegality has been nce by this Court. Consequently, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. The award dated 01.11.2016 passed by learned MACT, Hisar, is (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No the evidence available on record. No perversity or material illegality has been Consequently, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. The award dated 01.11.2016 passed by learned MACT, Hisar, is YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.03 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document