Sandeep Kumar v. Ajit Singh

Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate for the appellants. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) **** It is claimants’ appeal assailing the award dated 30.10.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram, whereby the claim pe,,on filed under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensa,on on account of death of Smt. Pooja Devi came to be dis- missed.

2.1 The case set up by the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 29.07.2017 claimant Sandeep Kumar along with his wife Smt. Pooja Devi was standing near NSG Campus Gate, Manesar, Gurugram, when a passen- ger bus bearing registra,on No. HR-55Y-6583, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, struck against Pooja Devi. It was alleged that the driver further ran the vehicle over the deceased, causing mul,ple grievous injur- ies. She was ini,ally taken to Rockland Hospital, IMT Manesar and there- a:er referred to R.R. Hospital, where she succumbed to the injuries during treatment. FIR regarding the occurrence was registered on the statement of claimant Sandeep Kumar. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1793-2020

2.2 It was further pleaded that the deceased was about 27 years of age, was engaged in household work as well as agricultural ac,vi,es and was earning approximately ₹20,000/- per month. Compensa,on to the tune of ₹50,00,000/- was claimed from the driver, owner and insurer of the alleged offending bus.

3. The respondents contested the claim pe,,on and specifically denied the involvement of bus No. HR-55Y-6583 in the alleged occurrence.

4. On the pleadings of the par,es, learned Tribunal framed ne- cessary issues and afforded adequate opportunity to the par,es to lead evidence.

5. Upon apprecia,on of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, learned Tribunal returned a finding that the claimants had failed to establish either the involvement of bus No. HR-55Y-6583 or negligence on the part of its driver. Consequently, the claim pe,,on was dismissed.

6. The Tribunal, while recording the aforesaid conclusion, no,ced several material discrepancies and deficiencies in the evidence produced by the claimants. It was specifically observed that the FIR had ini,ally been re- gistered against an unknown vehicle and an unknown driver and that the registra,on number of the alleged offending bus did not find men,on therein. The Tribunal further no,ced that no independent witness had come forward immediately a:er the occurrence to disclose the registra,on number of the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident.

7. It was further observed that though the place of occurrence was admiDedly covered by CCTV cameras, no CCTV footage was produced by the claimants to substan,ate their version. Likewise, no documentary material such as route permit, duty chart, log book or any official record Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1793-2020 was produced to establish that bus No. HR-55Y-6583 was actually plying at the relevant place and ,me.

8. The learned Tribunal also aDached significance to the fact that the Inves,ga,ng Officer of the criminal case was not examined by the claimants to explain the manner in which the alleged offending vehicle was subsequently connected with the accident. In absence of such evidence, the prosecu,on papers alone were rightly held insufficient to conclusively establish involvement of the vehicle in claim proceedings.

9. Another circumstance which weighed with the Tribunal was that claimant Sandeep Kumar projected himself as an eye-witness to the occurrence, whereas the evidence on record revealed that it was ASI Harmesh Kumar, who had shi:ed the injured to the hospital immediately a:er the accident. The Tribunal, therefore, found material inconsistency in the version put forth by the claimants.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has ar- gued that once FIR had been registered and final report under Sec,on 173 Cr.P.C. had been presented against the driver of bus No. HR-55Y-6583, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the involvement of the offending vehicle and allowed the claim pe,,on.

11. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid conten,on.

12. It is well seDled that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are indeed summary in nature and strict rules of evidence are not required to be applied with rigidity. Nevertheless, the founda,onal facts regarding involvement of the offending vehicle and rash and negligent driving must s,ll be established on the basis of preponderance of probabil- i,es. Mere registra,on of FIR or filing of a police report under Sec,on 173 Cr.P.C. cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of involvement of a Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1793-2020 par,cular vehicle, especially when the surrounding circumstances create serious doubt regarding the prosecu,on version.

13. In the present case, the FIR was admiDedly registered against an unknown vehicle and unknown driver. No sa,sfactory explana,on has come on record as to how bus No. HR-55Y-6583 was subsequently iden,- fied as the offending vehicle. The Inves,ga,ng Officer, being the most ma- terial witness to establish such linkage, was withheld from the witness-box. AdmiDedly, no CCTV footage or independent corrobora,ve evidence was produced despite availability thereof. Even no independent eye-witness was examined.

14. The cumula,ve effect of all these circumstances clearly prob- abilizes the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that the claimants failed to discharge the ini,al burden of proving involvement of the alleged offending bus in the accident in ques,on.

15. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based upon proper apprecia,on of evidence and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or misreading of record warran,ng interference by this Court in appellate jur- isdic,on.

16. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

17. Pending miscellaneous applica,on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 12, 2026 Nee,ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document