A motor accident claim fails when the claimant cannot prove the offending vehicle’s involvement.

The appellant claimed that, while walking with other devotees on a pilgrimage to Srisaila on 27 March 2019, he was struck from behind by a lorry and sustained injuries.

He sought compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which dismissed his claim because it found that he had not proved the accident.

He appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

1. Whether the appellant proved that he sustained injuries in an accident caused by the identified lorry on 27 March 2019

2. Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim was contrary to law and warranted appellate interference

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides the statutory basis for an appeal from a Claims Tribunal’s award.

The judgment cited no precedent or separately articulated evidentiary test; its determination turned on whether the evidence established that the appellant was injured in the accident alleged.

The Court found material inconsistencies between the appellant’s account and the documentary record.

The charge sheet did not name him among the injured persons, while the wound certificate recorded an injury in a road-traffic accident at 7:30 a.m., despite the alleged accident being at 6:00 a.m.

The Court also noted that the appellant had not examined other devotees to corroborate his presence on the pilgrimage, that his testimony about where he received treatment was inconsistent, and that the wound certificate did not identify the vehicle involved.

On the evidence as a whole, the Court held that the appellant had not proved that the identified lorry caused his injuries.

It dismissed the appeal.