1 2025:CGHC:25970 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 787 of 2019 1. Adesh Baiga S/o Kunwar Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Boirdand, Chiktipani, Police Station Gourela, Tahsil - Pendraroad, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Amritlal Baiga S/o Kunwar Singh Baiga Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Boirdand, Chiktipani, Police Station Gourela, Tahsil - Pendraroad, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Shahid Behna @ Kallu S/o Abdul Gaffar Aged About 40 Years Caste Musalman, R/o Shiv Mohalla, Bhariyantola, Gourela, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 19/06/2025 1. Appellants-claimants, have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 28.9.2018 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pendra Road (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.15/2017 by which the Tribunal has dismissed application of claimant for grant of compensation on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove the factum of accident from offending vehicle. 2 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimants/appellants have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.11,65,000/- under various heads, for the death of deceased Itwariya Bai in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are children of deceased, on 5.1.2017 when Itwariya Bai was coming towards home, at that time one Bolero vehicle No.CG12-R-1769 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant, dashed her as a result Itwariya Bai sustained grievous injuries on her head and felt unconscious. She was taken to Community Health Centre, Gourela where she died on 6.1.2017 while undergoing treatment. 3. Non-applicant submitted his reply to application denying involvement of offending vehicle in the alleged accident. It was pleaded that from 3.1.2017 to 6.1.2017 the offending vehicle was standing in a garage for servicing. In order to get compensation false case has been filed against the non- applicant. Income as also dependency of claimants on the deceased was denied. 4. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal recording a finding that claimants could not able to prove that the accident in question was caused by the offending vehicle, held that the claimants are not entitled 3 to get any compensation. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the claim case was dismissed by the Tribunal only on the ground that appellants failed to prove that accident was caused by the offending vehicle. He submits that as a result of accident, FIR was lodged mentioning registration number of offending vehicle based on which a criminal case was registered against driver of offending vehicle and he was charge sheeted. Further, in the course of investigation, the offending vehicle was seized vide seizure memo of Ex.P-5, which was obtained on suprudnama by non-applicant. Even an independent eyewitness namely Gulichand (AW-2) has categorically deposed about the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. Placing reliance on FIR and statement of eyewitness Gulichand, he submits that factum of involvement of offending vehicle stood proved beyond doubt, however, the Tribunal did not consider the material available in record in proper perspective and wrongly dismissed claim application of claimants. He submits that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like a criminal trial are inapplicable in claim cases. Standard of proof in such matters is one of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays that the impugned award be set aside. Therefore, he prays that the impugned award be set aside and appropriate compensation be awarded to claimants/appellants 4 herein, as per latest law. He places reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8551 of 2024 (Geeta Dubey & ors vs United Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors) 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposing the submission of learned counsel for appellants, would contend that there is no illegality or infirmity in the award and the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim case. He submits that the burden lies on the claimants to prove the accident and since the claimants failed to prove the involvement of offending vehicle in the alleged accident, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in dismissing the claim case. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and perused the record. 8. Claimants filed application seeking compensation for death of deceased in a road traffic accident occurred on 5.1.2017 at 2:00 p.m. near Sub-Health Centre, Boirdand. Non-applicant submitted reply to application denying the fact that accident in question was caused by the offending vehicle and on the date of alleged accident, vehicle was sent for servicing to garage of Gama Mistry of Gaurella. Non-applicant has also examined owner of garage namely Gama Mistry, who supported the stand taken by non-applicant. 9. For proving the factum of accident the claimants have relied 5 upon the police papers i.e. FIR, Merg Intimation, postmortem report, seizure memo etc. They have also examined Gulichand (AW-2) as an eyewitness of accident. Perusal of Merg Intimation (Ex.P-3) recorded on 6.1.2017 would show that it does not contain details of vehicle that caused accident and its driver. FIR was lodged on 26.1.2017 giving details of offending vehicle and its owner-cum-driver. Reason mentioned for delay in lodging FIR is merg inquiry. 10. Appellant No.1 Aadesh Baiga claiming himself to be an eyewitness of accident examined himself as PW-1. He has stated that on the fateful day at about 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon, his mother (deceased) when coming towards house, the offending vehicle, driven by non-applicant in rash and negligent manner, dashed his mother as a result she sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital during treatment. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that at the time of accident he was in the house; ahead of his house, there is house of Shanti Bai and thereafter there is a pond and then Sub-Health Centre is located, where the accident occurred. He has stated that distance between his house and Shanti’s house is 100 meter and distance between pond and Sub-Health Centre is about 30 meter. He has further deposed that on the date of accident itself he has informed the police about the accident, offending vehicle and its driver. On the same date, the police has recorded his 6 statement also. However, in opinion of this Court, version of appellant No.1 (PW-1) does not inspire confidence of this Court that he had seen the accident in question because according to appellant No.1 himself, at the time of accident, he was in the house, whereas the place of accident is located at a distance of about 130 meter and in between house of appellant No.1 and the place of accident, there is one house of Shanti as well as a pond. It is impossible for a person who is present in his house to see the accident that has occurred 130 meter away from his house. Further, in Merg intimation sent to the police there is no mention of registration number of offending vehicle or make of the vehicle. Appellants have not filed the statements of witnesses recorded by police during merg inquiry to show that anywhere registration number of the vehicle and name of driver was stated. In fact, the claimants/appellants have not brought on record of the Claims Tribunal any document to show that immediately after the accident, claimants had ever informed the police about the number of vehicle that caused accident which resulted into death of deceased. It appears that registration number of offending vehicle and name of its driver came to light for the first time on 26.1.2017 when the FIR of accident was lodged. 11.True it is that Gulichand (AW-2) has deposed that on the date of accident, when he was grazing goats he saw that one four- 7 wheeler coming from Amarkantak side had dashed Itwariya Bai as a result she became unconscious. But at the same time, this witness has admitted that he could not see the number of vehicle and as to who was driving it. Thus, evidence of this witness though proved the factum of accident but creates doubt about the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident because his statement does not provide direct evidence regarding the identity of the offending vehicle and its driver. 12. There is no dispute with respect to law that the standard of proof in motor accident matters is one of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Preponderance of probabilities means 'more probable and rational view of the case', not necessarily as certain as the pleadings should be. Thus, the burden to prove the factum of accident and involvement of vehicle is not heavy but that does not mean that if facts, evidence or documents placed on record by the claimants does not inspire confidence, still, Claims Tribunals are required to rely on the same and to allow claim application just because an accident has occurred and FIR is registered. In case at hand, Gulichand (AW-2), who was present on the spot at the time of accident, has categorically stated that he has not disclosed the registration number of vehicle to the police and he could not see as to who was driving the vehicle. Whereas, Aadesh Baiga (AW-1), who 8 was in the house at the time of accident which is at a distance of 130 meter from the spot, has been able to see the registration number of vehicle and its driver. If the statements of afore two witnesses are read juxtaposing each other, the preponderance of probabilities will clearly lead to the conclusion that the respondent herein and his vehicle was falsely implicated in the case or that the claimants have miserably failed to prove involvement of offending vehicle in the accident even below a degree of preponderance of probabilities. Additionally, in the given facts of the case, delayed lodging of FIR i.e. 21 days after the accident without cogent explanation, further weakens the claimants’ case. 13. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in case of Geeta Dubey (supra) is distinguishable on facts. 14. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court sees no reason to differ with the well reasoned award passed by the Claims Tribunal which appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence and material placed on record by respective parties and the same is accordingly upheld. 15. The appeal being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI