No.1. Non Mr. Ajit Kumar v. Nos. 2 & 3. for r *****(cid:1) *** AMARINDER S RAL) DER

Judgment

1. The present appeal has been pref The n preferred by the appellant-claima claimant, seeking reversal versal of the impugned Award dated dated 01.10.2001 passed by the Mo Motor Accident Claims Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (herein (hereinafter referred to as the learn learned Tribunal), where whereby the claim petition filed by the by the appellant–claimant, arising out ng out of the motor vehic vehicle accident dated 04.10.1999 .1999 in which he sustained multip multiple injuries, was dism as dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant Learn llant-claimant submits that the learn learned Tribunal has gros as grossly erred in holding that the acc the accident did not occur due to the ra the rash and negligent dr ent driving of respondent No.1, whi 1, which rendered the impugned awa d award unsustainable. Fu ble. Further, the appellant proved by ed by cogent evidence that he sustain sustained injuries in the acc the accident which occurred at a turnin ning where the right front side of t de of the offending car str car struck the rear portion of the sco the scooter on which the appellant w lant was

PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.02.02 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4217-2001 (cid:1) 2001 (O&M) -2- riding as a pillion pillion, hence, clearly establishing ne ing negligence on the part of responde spondent No.1. Furthermo hermore, the learned Tribunal wrongl rongly drew an adverse inference fro nce from non-registration o ation of a criminal case, ignoring that g that the appellant was pressurized n rized not to lodge an FIR n FIR as respondent No.1 was in g government service, and such no uch non- registration canno cannot negate proved negligence. In s ce. In support of this submission, learn , learned counsel placed re aced reliance upon Ravi v. Badrinaray arayan 2011 (4) SCC 693; New Ind India Assuarace Co. Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Singh (2021 2021) PHHC:032530; United Ind India Insurance Co. L o. Ltd. v. Narender Singh and Oth Others (2022) PHHC:009951; B ; Bajaj Allianz General neral Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R Ranjit Kaur and Others (201 (2016) PHHC:068640 40 and Smt. Bindu Singh v. Hari P ari Pratap Singh 2023 (159) ALR 39 R 394. Additionally, the ly, the consistent testimony of PW f PW-1 Karnail Singh, an eyewitne ewitness, establishes rash a rash and negligent driving of the offe he offending vehicle. Lastly, the medic medical evidence of PW f PW-2 Dr. Narinder Kumar corrobora rroborates the occurrence of the accide accident and the injuries juries suffered, which has not been pr een properly appreciated by the learn e learned Tribunal.

3. Per er contra, learned counsels for for the respondents submit that t that the impugned award award does not suffer from any ille y illegality or perversity and has be has been passed after prop r proper appreciation of the evidence dence on record. It is contended that t that the learned Tribunal ibunal has rightly assessed the oral an oral and documentary evidence and and has returned well-rea reasoned findings on all the issue e issues involved, which do not call f t call for any interference rence by this Court.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for Havin sel for the parties and after perusing t using the paper book with with their able assistance, this Court Court is of the considered view that t that the contentions raise s raised on behalf of the appellant do nt do not merit acceptance and finds finds no infirmity in the n the findings recorded by the lear e learned Tribunal. The appellant h llant has PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.02.02 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4217-2001 (cid:1) 2001 (O&M) -3- miserably failed failed to prove the occurrence in t e in the manner pleaded in the cla petition. Admitte dmittedly, no FIR was registered aga d against respondent No.1 in respect espect of the alleged accid accident. The explanation sought to b ht to be offered by the appellant for no for non- registration of of the FIR is that he was pres s pressurised not to initiate crimin criminal proceedings since s since respondent No.1 was a governm overnment servant. The said explanati planation does not hold th old the field. The record reveals that ls that although a police complaint w laint was lodged by the ap the appellant against respondent No. nt No.1 but no further action was tak as taken thereon. There is here is no material on record to sugges suggest that the said complaint was ev was ever pursued or that r that its withdrawal was compelled pelled. Rather, in the absence of a of any subsequent actio t action, it can reasonably be pres e presumed that the police found und no substance in the s in the said complaint.

5. The argument raised by the coun The counsel for the appellant that no hat non- registration of a of an FIR is not fatal to a claim claim under Section 166 of the Mot e Motor Vehicles Act has ct has no merits. While it is true tha rue that registration of an FIR is not is not an absolute requirem quirement, the claimant is nevertheles rtheless required to prove negligence gence on the part of the f the driver of the offending vehicl vehicle by reliable evidence, which which is conspicuously ab sly absent in the present case. Even t Even the judgements relied upon by t n by the appellant do not o not advance his case, as in those ma se matters either FIRs were registered istered at a belated stage o stage or negligence of the driver wa er was duly established by cogent a gent and trustworthy evid y evidence. Rather, the testimony o ony of independent eye witness, S ess, Sh. Rakesh Aggarwa garwal, Advocate proves that the dr the driver of the scooter, on which t hich the appellant-claiman laimant was riding as pillion, was ne was negligent and presence of said e said eye witness at the spo the spot is not denied by PW-1 i.e. dri i.e. driver of the aforesaid scooter. Thu er. Thus, in the present esent case, neither negligence has has been proved nor any crimin criminal proceedings were s were initiated, and therefore, the clai he claim fails on this count. PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.02.02 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4217-2001 (cid:1) 2001 (O&M) -4-

6. At the outset, it may be noticed tha At th ed that actori incumbit onus proban obandi, meaning thereby ereby that the burden of proof lies up lies upon the claimant. The involveme olvement of the offending nding vehicle and negligence of its dr f its driver are foundational facts, whi must be establish tablished by cogent, consistent and rel nd reliable evidence. In the present ca ent case, the claimant has nt has failed to discharge this burde burden. It is also well settled that t that the learned Tribunal, ibunal, being the Court of first instanc instance, had the advantage of observi bserving the demeanour nour of the witnesses and appreci ppreciating the oral and documenta mentary evidence in the f n the first instance, and unless its con its conclusions are shown to be perver perverse or based on no ev n no evidence, the same deserve due w due weight in appellate scrutiny.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and c In vie and circumstances, this Court finds finds no ground to interfe interfere with the award dated 01.10.20

1.10.2001 passed by the learned Tribun Tribunal and the same is u e is upheld. Resultantly, the present a esent appeal is dismissed. (AMA AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL AL) January 28, 202 Pankaj* 8, 2026 Whether speaking/reaso g/reasoned Whether reportable JUDGE : : Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.02.02 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh