Non-examination of material witnesses justifies dismissal of motor accident claim for failure to prove vehicle involvement.

On May 12, 2017, the deceased, Raunak, was allegedly struck by a tractor (MP-31-AA-4283) driven rashly by respondent No. 2

Raunak succumbed to his injuries the following day

While a merg was initially registered, the FIR was lodged on June 13, 2017, after a significant delay

The appellants filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was dismissed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena, on June 28, 2019

The Tribunal found that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle

The appellants challenged this dismissal, arguing that the police investigation and charge-sheet sufficiently proved the accident

1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR was fatal to the claim proceedings

2. Whether the appellants successfully proved that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle driven by respondent No. 2

3. Whether the non-examination of key eye-witnesses and the Investigating Officer warrants an adverse inference against the claimants

The court primarily applied Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals against tribunal awards

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others (AIR 2011 SC 1226), which establishes that while delay in lodging an FIR is not automatically fatal to a motor accident claim if a cogent explanation is provided, such cases require closer judicial scrutiny to rule out fabrication or concoction

The court also applied the principle of "adverse inference" under the Indian Evidence Act, where the failure to produce essential witnesses (such as eye-witnesses and the Investigating Officer) suggests that their testimony would have been unfavorable to the party withholding them

The court observed that although the accident occurred on May 12, 2017, the FIR was not lodged until June 13, 2017

While acknowledging that delay alone does not disqualify a claim, the court noted that the appellants failed to examine Ashok Goyal—the primary eye-witness and the individual who reportedly took the deceased to the hospital—despite his name appearing in the merg enquiry

Furthermore, the appellants failed to examine the Investigating Officer to corroborate the findings of the charge-sheet

The court reasoned that the absence of these crucial testimonies created a presumption against the appellants' version of events.

Applying the scrutiny mandated by Ravi v. Badrinarayan, the court found that the evidence did not satisfactorily link the offending vehicle to the accident and suggested the vehicle might have been falsely implicated for the purpose of seeking compensation

The court affirmed the Claims Tribunal's findings, noting they were not erroneous and were based on a proper appreciation of the record

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the order of the Claims Tribunal rejecting the compensation claim was upheld