FAO/3375/2015 of SULEMAN Vs JUBER AND ORS on 10 September 2026

IN TH Suleman Juber and o CORAM: HO Argued by:

DEEPAK GU

award date Tribunal, M Vehicles Act

2. he was pro Ghuspethi respondent appellant, t amputation

3. denied the o the allegatio

4. occurred on

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

Versus thers

Reserved on: 09 Pronounced on: 1 Pronounced fully/opera ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GU Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate fo None for respondents No.1 and Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advoca Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3 – Insuranc **** UPTA, J. The present appeal has been ed 27.03.2015 passed by the ewat, whereby his claim petitio t, 1988 has been dismissed. The appellant claimed that on oceeding on foot along with road, vehicle bearing registra No.1, came from behind an the accident resulted in serio of his right leg. He claimed com The respondents contested t occurrence as pleaded, the invo on of rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal framed Issue No n 05.10.2013 due to rash and n

D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3375-2015

...Appellant

...Respondents .09.2026 10.09.2026 ative part: Fully UPTA r the appellant. d 2. ate and ce Company. n filed by the claimant against e learned Motor Accident Cla on under Section 166 of the M 05.10.2013 at about 7.00 PM, w his brother Sher Mohammad tion No. HR-74A-2121, driven nd struck him. According to us injuries to him and ultima mpensation of ₹40 lakhs. the claim. The insurer specific olvement of the insured vehicle . o.1 as to whether the accident negligent driving of vehicle No.

the aims otor while d on n by the ately cally and had HR-

74A-2121 b also examin respondent

5. against the Tribunal we report at th intervening report, and the offendin

6. appellant s suffered se period. It is the basis fo brother, co accident.

7. award. It is because of cumulative credibility o of the insure

8. this Court is

9. before the M claimant is r of probabil Court has c by respondent No.1. The claima ned, inter alia, his brother She s did not lead any evidence.

The Tribunal, after considerin claimant on Issue No.1. The ma ere the delay in lodging the FIR e first hospital, the fact that the periods between his hospita the circumstances surrounding ng vehicle. Assailing the finding of the submits that the finding is un rious injuries and remained un argued that the delay in lodging r rejecting the claim and that th oupled with the medical recor Learned counsel appearing for submitted that the Tribunal h delay in lodging the FIR. Rath effect of several circumstan of the appellant's version and, in ed vehicle. Having considered the rival sub s of the view that the appeal doe There can be no dispute with Motor Accident Claims Tribunal required to establish his case on ities, and not beyond reasona consistently so held in Bimla ant examined himself as PW-1 er Mohammad and a doctor. g the evidence, returned a find aterial circumstances noticed by R, the absence of any medico-l e claimant remained at home du l admissions without lodging g the identification of the owne Tribunal, learned counsel for nsustainable as the claimant nder treatment for a consider g the FIR could not have been m he evidence of the claimant and rd, was sufficient to establish r the insurer supports the impug has not dismissed the claim me her, the finding is based upon nces, which materially affect particular, the alleged involvem bmissions and examined the aw es not merit any acceptance. h the proposition that proceed are summary in nature and that n the touchstone of prepondera able doubt. The Hon’ble Supre Devi v. Himachal Road Transp

and The ding y the egal uring any er of the had able made d his the gned erely the the ment ward, ings t the ance eme port

Corporation Cruz, (2013 standard ap

10. cannot, by i Ravi v. Badr in cases of d the delay satisfactory

11. case is to b ultimate qu evidence, th that the par occurred du

12. 05.10.2013, explanation medical rec after his adm 07.10.2013, Ahmad Hos before bein report was l

13. non-medico by itself, wo when consid

14. more signif driver and o n, (2009) 13 SCC 530 and Dulc

3) 10 SCC 646. The Tribunal, t pplicable to a criminal prosecutio Equally, it is well settled tha itself, be a ground for rejecting rinarayan, (2011) 4 SCC 693, th delayed FIR, the evidence has to cannot be treated as fatal explanation and the evidence o However, the aforesaid princip be disregarded irrespective of t uestion remains whether, on he claimant has established, on rticular vehicle was involved in ue to the negligence of its driver In the present case, the accide , whereas the FIR was regi offered was that the appellan ord, however, as noticed by the mission of 05.10.2013, was disc , remained at home till 14.10.20 spital on 28.10.2013 and again ng admitted on 09.11.2013 an lodged during either of these int More importantly, the initial h o-legal case and no ruqa was se ould certainly not conclude the dered along with the other circu The circumstance concerning ficant. The appellant, while ap owner were not known to him.

cina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xa therefore, cannot apply the s on. at mere delay in lodging the a genuine motor accident claim he Hon’ble Supreme Court held o be scrutinised more carefully where the claimant furnishe otherwise inspires confidence. ples do not mean that delay in ev he surrounding circumstances. a cumulative assessment of n a preponderance of probabili the accident and that the accid . ent is alleged to have taken place stered only on 11.11.2013. nt remained under treatment. e Tribunal, shows that the appell charged from Gopi Nath Hospita 013, was thereafter discharged f remained at home till 09.11.2 nd discharged on 11.11.2013. tervening periods. ospital record treated the case nt to the police. This circumsta matter, but it assumes significa umstances noticed by the Tribun the identity of the owner is ppearing as PW-1, stated that . His brother Sher Mohammad

avier trict FIR

m. In that and es a very The the ties, dent e on The The lant, al on from

No as a nce, ance al. still the also stated that registered o record show while statin

15. The claima witnessed t the owner n close relatio entitled to claimant's v

16. eyewitness claimant's o accident an was examin showed tha periods.

17. was a delay of the delay failure to lo out of hos circumstanc

18. the absence burden of e required to that such in insured with they were not known to him p owner was a resident of the s wed that Sher Mohammad hi g that the owner was his nephew This material contradiction is nt's case is that his brother he accident. If that were so, the nor the driver was known to the on and co-villager, was a circu take into consideration while version. The Court is also unable to Sher Mohammad, despite own case, did not lodge any rep d 11.11.2013. The explanation ned by the Tribunal with refere at other persons were attendin Thus, the Tribunal did not reje y in lodging the FIR. The finding i yed FIR, the absence of an initial dge a report during the periods pital, the conduct of the alleg ce relating to the identity of the It is true that the respondent e of defence evidence cannot establishing the foundational fa establish not merely that he ha njuries were caused in an accid h respondent No.3.

prior to the accident. However, same village and the summons mself had received the summ w. not a mere technical discrepa was accompanying him and e subsequent assertion that neit em, when the owner was alleged umstance, which the Tribunal e assessing the credibility of ignore the fact that the alle being present according to port during the period between that he was attending the inju ence to the hospital record, w g the claimant during the relev ect the claim merely because th is based upon the cumulative ef medico-legal case, the unexplai s when the claimant was admitt ged eyewitness, and the mate owner. ts did not lead evidence. Howe relieve the claimant of the in acts of his claim. The claimant ad suffered serious injuries, but ent involving the particular veh

the s on mons ncy. had ther dly a was the eged the the ured hich vant here ffect ined edly erial ever, nitial was also hicle

19. underwent record may however, by accident.

20. that the fin impermissib where the v by the circu

21. the Tribuna It is not nec The claim ca the appella involvemen

22. assessment No.2 as ha claimant.

23. interfere wi Motor Accid

24. of.

10.09.2026 Yogesh Uploaded on

The fact that the claiman amputation is undoubtedly a establish the factum and serio y itself establish the involvemen On a holistic consideration of t nding recorded by the Tribun ble standard of proof. There is no view taken by the Tribunal is a r mstances appearing on record. It would, however, be approp l that the vehicle was definitely essary for this Court to affirm su an be dismissed on the narrowe nt failed to establish, on a pr t of the insured vehicle in the ac Once the finding on Issue No of compensation does not arise aving become redundant after For the reasons recorded abo ith the impugned award dated dent Claims Tribunal, Mewat. Th Pending miscellaneous applica

Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- n: 10.09.2026

nt suffered serious injuries matter of concern. The med ousness of the injuries. It does nt of vehicle No. HR-74A-2121 in the evidence, this Court cannot h nal is perverse or based upon o ground for interference in app reasonably possible view suppo riate to observe that the findin “planted” is somewhat categor uch a positive finding of fabricat er and legally sufficient ground reponderance of probabilities, ccident alleged by him. o.1 is maintained, the question

e. The Tribunal rightly treated Is r deciding Issue No.1 against ove, this Court finds no ground 27.03.2015 passed by the lear he appeal is accordingly dismisse ation(s), if any, shall stand dispo

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

and dical not, n the hold n an peal, rted g of rical. tion. that the n of ssue the d to rned ed. osed