***

MANDEEP PANNU, J. –

1. The present First Appeal Against Order has been filed by the appellant–M/s Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited assailing the award dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.32,27,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization has been awarded against the appellant as well as the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

2. The claim petition was instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants namely Smt.Bina Devi (widow) and her three minor children, on account of death of her husband- Sh.Imrat Lal, who was aged 38 years at the time of his death in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 03.06.2022.

3. The case set up by the claimants was that on 03.06.2022 at about 2:00 am, near Rampura Flyover, P.S.Khedki Daula, Gurugram, Sh.Imrat Lal, while returning from night duty, where he was employed as Clerk/Loading Representative (Munshi) in M/s OSL Logistics Pvt. Ltd., met with an accident. He was pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-51-BY-2643, which was being driven by his colleague Bijender. Their motorcycle was hit by a speeding car bearing registration No. DL-01CZ-7439, in a rash and negligent manner. Both the motorcyclists suffer injuries in the accident. They were taken to hospital at Gurugram, by other employees from the Company, who reached the spot after the accident. Sh.Imrat Lal was declared as brought dead by the hospital. FIR No.226 dated 03.06.2022 was registered by Sh.Mahavir on account of death of his brother. The deceased was survived by his wife and children (claimants) and he was claimed to be earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Clerk in M/s OSL Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

4. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle denied the accident. Insurer of the offending vehicle i.e appellant herein, pleaded that it was a hit and run case as the alleged accident had taken place with an unidentified vehicle. It was further pleaded on behalf of the Insurance Company that claim petition has been filed in collusion with owner and driver merely to take compensation amount. It was also averred that driver of the motorcycle himself was driving in a rash and negligent manner.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for adjudication:-

1. Whether respondent no.1 caused the accident in question on 03.06.2022 by driving the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1CZ-7439 in rash and negligent manner and Imrat Lal (husband of the petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 to 4) died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident?OPP.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much amount and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in violation of the Insurance Policy, if so, its effect? OPR3.

4. Whether the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Claim Petition? OPR3.

5. Relief.”

6. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1CZ-7439 and claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.32,27,500/-. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that alleged accident had taken place with an unidentified vehicle, being a hit and run case. Even FIR was registered against unknown vehicle and unknown driver, on statement of Mahavir, brother of the deceased-Sh.Imrat Lal. He further submits that offending vehicle came into picture only on the basis of statement of Bijender, who was driving the motorcycle.

7A. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the impugned award.

8. The Tribunal has given detailed reasoning while recording findings against issue no.1, wherein it has been held that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by vehicle bearing registration no.DL-1CZ-7439. PW2 Bijender, who was riding the motorcycle at the time of accident and deceased was pillion rider on his motorcycle, stepped into the witness box and reiterated the facts as stated in the claim petition. He has also tendered his affidavit Ex.PW2/A wherein he has deposed that on date of accident i.e 03.06.2022 at about 2:00 am, his motorcycle was hit from behind by vehicle bearing registration no.DL-1CZ-7439. In said accident, he also received injuries and was admitted in the Hospital. In the meantime, FIR was registered in death case of Sh.Imrat Lal by his brother Mahavir against unknown vehicle. The Tribunal has further relied upon Ex.PC, a copy of challan presented under Section 173 Cr.P.C against driver of offending vehicle for causing death by rash and negligent driving, at the same place, date and time and it was noted that during investigation of the case, statement of injured i.e PW2 Bijender, was recorded wherein he has specifically mentioned the registration number of subject vehicle, as above. Even in cross-examination, Bijender/PW2 has deposed that he had seen the vehicle at the spot, which was a while colour car, however, he did not remember the registration number of the subject vehicle at the time of deposition. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, while relying upon judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & others 2018 AIR (SC)1900, has correctly held that burden of proof, in claim petitions under Motor Vehicles Act, need not be beyond reasonable doubt as the claimants have to prove their case on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.

9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment passed in Kuncham Lavanya and others vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd and another 2025(2) RCR (Civil) 420 = (2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20002 = 2025 INSC 452, has held that FIR cannot be expected to be encyclopaedia and it’s only purpose is to set the criminal law into motion, leading to proper and thorough investigation by the investigating agency. Therefore, specific identity of the offending vehicle at later stage by the investigating agency is not fatal to case of the claimants. Relevant observations are extracted as under:-

“The very fact that the case was registered against an unknown vehicle initially would indicate that the offending vehicle was not identified. However, since an FIR is not expected to be encyclopaedia and is only for the purpose of putting into motion criminal law such that thorough and fully-fledged investigation by the police ensues, it is the duty of the investigating agency to find out the identity of the culprit which in the present case would be the offending car and driver and take action in accordance with law. Thus, the mere fact that initially the FIR records the vehicle as unknown would not be fatal for the prosecution/claimants to later come up with the specific identity of the vehicle/driver, with the obvious caveat that the connection of the accident with the said vehicle has to be based on cogent and reliable evidence.”

10. Hence, keeping in view the well-reasoned and detailed findings recorded by the Tribunal after relying upon FIR (Ex.PA), copy of challan (Ex.PC) and Postmortem Report of deceased (Ex.PB) as well as observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram’s case (supra) and Kuncham Lavanya’s case (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine.

11. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

Appeal dismissed.

********