The claimant’s failure to prove the offending vehicle’s involvement defeated the compensation claim.

The claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that a car struck his motorcycle near Srirangapatna on 24 March 2019 and caused injuries.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the claimant had not established the car’s involvement in the accident.

On appeal under Section 173(1), the claimant challenged that finding and alternatively requested a remand to examine a person said to have identified the car.

Whether the claimant established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car alleged to be involved.

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal under Section 173(1) of that Act.

The Court assessed whether the evidence established the alleged vehicle’s involvement, considering inconsistencies in the contemporaneous medical records, the complaint, and the evidence.

It also stated that remand is appropriate only in rare cases and should not be ordered casually.

The Court found material inconsistencies in the accounts of the vehicle involved: the initial medical record referred to an unknown vehicle, the later accident register referred to another two-wheeler, and the complaint and subsequent records identified a car.

The accident register was prepared on the day the claimant was admitted to the trauma institute, before the complaint was lodged; the claimant’s sister, who brought him to hospital and was said to have provided the history, was not examined.

The claimant also did not examine Anand, from whom he said he learned the car’s registration number.

The Court considered the recorded rear-left damage to the car inconsistent with the claimant’s account that the car struck his motorcycle from behind.

On this evidence, it upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the car’s involvement had not been established.

It rejected remand because the claimant had not explained why the relevant witnesses were not examined before the Tribunal.

It dismissed the appeal and declined to remand the matter.