IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 102 CM-12206-CII-2018; CM-12205-CII-2018 in/and FAO-3366-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision.:05.05.2026 Sanjay Malik …..Appellant Vs. Madan Lal and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate and Mr. Saurabh, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-12206-CII-2018; CM-12205-CII-2018: These are applica!ons for condoning the delay of 113 days in filing and 73 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons as men!oned in the applica!on supported by affidavit of the appellant, both the applica!ons are allowed. Delay in filing and re-filing is condoned. Main case : The present appeal has been filed by the claimant assailing the award dated 23.01.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat, whereby the claim pe!!on ins!tuted under Sec!on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed. 2. The case of the appellant-claimant, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 31.12.2009/01.01.2010 at about 01:30 a.m., he was travelling in a Tata Safari bearing registra!on No. HR-11C-7777 from Rohtak to Gohana. When he reached near Hanuman Mandir, a truck bearing registra!on No. HR-58-7795, allegedly being driven by respondent No.1 in a NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-12206-CII-2018; CM-12205-CII-2018 in/and FAO-3366-2018 (O&M) rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direc!on and collided with his vehicle, resul!ng in mul!ple injuries. The claimant remained under treatment in different hospitals and, alleging that he had incurred substan!al medical expenses and suffered prolonged disability, filed the claim pe!!on in October 2012 seeking compensa!on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. Upon no!ce, respondent No.1-driver was proceeded ex parte, whereas respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. owner and insurer contested the claim and specifically denied the involvement of the alleged truck in the accident. 4. The learned Tribunal, a?er framing necessary issues and apprecia!ng the evidence on record, returned a finding that the claimant had failed to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle as well as rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver and, consequently, dismissed the claim pe!!on. 5. Assailing the said award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in discarding the tes!mony of the claimant (PW-1) and his father (PW-10) merely on account of delay in lodging the claim pe!!on and absence of a formal FIR, par!cularly when the occurrence had been reported to the police through a Daily Diary Report on the date of accident itself. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted. The founda!on of a claim under Sec!on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act rests upon proof of the involvement of the offending vehicle and rash and negligent driving by its driver, albeit on the touchstone of preponderance of probabili!es. 7. In the present case, the version set up by the claimant during trial does not find corrobora!on from the contemporaneous record. The Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-12206-CII-2018; CM-12205-CII-2018 in/and FAO-3366-2018 (O&M) Daily Diary Report, which was recorded on the statement of PW-10, namely the father of the claimant, does not aDribute the accident to any par!cular vehicle nor does it allege negligence on the part of the driver of the truck in ques!on. Rather, it records that he had no knowledge as to how the accident had occurred and that the details would be disclosed by the injured upon regaining consciousness. This material contradic!on between the earliest version and the subsequent tes!mony materially affects the credibility of the claimant’s case. 8. Furthermore, the conduct of the claimant also assumes significance. Though he was discharged from the hospital by April 2010, no prompt steps were taken to set the criminal law in mo!on or to iden!fy and proceed against the alleged offending vehicle. Even the father of the claimant, who is stated to be an Advocate, did not pursue any remedy before the police or higher authori!es. The claim pe!!on came to be filed only on 27.10.2012, i.e. a?er a delay of nearly three years, for which no sa!sfactory explana!on has been furnished. Though delay by itself may not be fatal, in the absence of any cogent evidence, it assumes relevance while apprecia!ng the overall probabili!es of the case. 9. Though strict rules of evidence are not required to be applied in motor accident claim cases and a pragma!c approach is to be adopted; however, it is to be emphasized that the claimant must establish the basic facts rela!ng to the accident and involvement of the vehicle. A claim cannot be allowed in the absence of reliable and convincing evidence. 10. In the present case, except for the oral asser!ons made by the claimant and his father, which stand contradicted by the earliest version recorded in the DDR, there is no independent or corrobora!ve evidence to establish the involvement of truck No. HR-58-7795 or negligence on the part of its driver. There is no site plan, no police inves!ga!on report, and no independent witness to support the claim. It is well seDled that negligence Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-12206-CII-2018; CM-12205-CII-2018 in/and FAO-3366-2018 (O&M) cannot be presumed merely because an accident has occurred or because a heavy vehicle is alleged to be involved. 11. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based upon a proper apprecia!on of the evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse or suffering from any illegality warran!ng interference by this Court in appellate jurisdic!on. 12. Consequently, this Court is sa!sfied that the claimant has failed to discharge the burden cast upon him under Sec!on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The impugned award does not call for any interference. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 14. All pending miscellaneous applica!ons, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 05, 2026 Nee!ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document