Mulkh Raj vs Yadvinder Singh & Others on 11 August, 2009

FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M)                          1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                      FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M)
                                      Date of decision: 11.8.2009

Mulkh Raj                                         ......Appellants(s)
                               Versus

Yadvinder Singh & others                          ......Respondent(s)


CORAM:-      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

                         * * *

Present:     Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant.


Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

CM No.16405-CII of 2009

For the reasons mentioned, the application is allowed. Order

dated 10.7.209 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number.

FAO No.1435 of 2009

This appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant challenging

the impugned award whereby the claim application filed by him was

dismissed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar holding that the

claimant has failed to prove that he sustained injuries because of the rash

and negligent driving of Honda City Car bearing No.PB-09-E-0678 by

respondent No.1 in a motor vehicular accident that took place on

20.5.2006.

Briefly stated, as per the averments, on 20.5.2006 the

appellant along with one Bihari Lal was going towards Ghanauli from his

village on scooter No.PB-12-D-0501 and when they reached near the turn

of village Ahmadpur after crossing the bridge of Bhakra Canal, a Honda car

bearing No.PB-09-E-0678 being driven by respondent No.1 came from

Ghanauli side in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the

scooter of the claimant-appellant, as a result of which both of them
FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M) 2

sustained injuries. The claimant-appellant was taken to Civil Hospital,

Ropar and then to Parmar Nursing Home, Ropar. It was also stated that

DDR No.13 dated 21.5.2006 was lodged in Police Station Sadar Ropar. It

was further claimed that the appellant was permanently disabled and he

spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- on his treatment.The appellant also sought

compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the aforesaid accident.

The claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing

separate written statements. Respondents No.1 and 2 pleaded that no

accident took place with the car in question and a false DDR was recorded

in this regard to get the compensation illegally. Respondent No.3 denied

the accident in question. Respondent No.3 also raised other objections.

The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the appellant had

failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to establish on record

that he sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of

Honda City Car bearing No.PB-09-E-0678 by respondent No.1 and

accordingly dismissed the claim petition. The observations of the Tribunal

read as follows:

“It is claimed by the claimant that the accident in

question took place on 20.5.2006 in the area of

Ahmadpur at about 2.30 p.m with Honda Car bearing

No.PB-09-E-0678 as a result of which he sustained

injuries and was removed to CH, Ropar, but as the

doctors were on strike, he was got admitted in Parmar

Nursing Home, Ropar. However, a close scrutiny of

both oral as well as documentary evidence led by the

claimant reveal that the claimant has failed to establish

on record that he sustained injuries as a result of rash

and negligent driving of Honda Car No.PB-09E-0678 by
FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M) 3

respondent No.1. The specific stand taken by the

respondents is that the said car was never involved in

the accident in question. Even in the DDR copy of which

is Ex.P-53 lodged by Barma Nand, cousin brother of the

claimant reveals that the scooter driven by the claimant

struck against a tree on the left side of the road while he

could not control the scooter on seeing as Esteem Car

of silver colour coming from the opposite direction and

the occurrence in question took place all of a sudden

and no body is at fault. The claimant has not examined

said Barma Nand for the reasons best known to him.

Even it is claimed by the claimant that his statement was

recorded by the police while he was lying admitted in

Parmar Nursing Home, Ropar, but the said statement

has also been with held by the claimant. On the other

hand, both respondents No.1 and 2 have stepped into

the witness box and have unequivocally denied the

involvement of Honda City Car No.PB-9-E-0678 in the

accident in question. Even the application copy of

which is Ex.P-54 was submitted by the claimant on

8.11.2006 after much delay and as such no reliance can

be placed upon the same. The claimant has thus, failed

to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to establish

on record that he sustained injuries because of the rash

and negligent driving of Honda City Car No.PB-09-E-

0678 by respondent No.1 on 20.5.2006 at about 2.30

p.m in the area of village Ahmadpur. The authorities

relied upon by learned counsel for the claimant are not
FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M) 4

applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Accordingly,

this issue is decided against the claimant and in favour

of the respondents.”

Challenging the impugned award, the learned counsel for the

appellant has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate

the evidence on record from which it stands established that the injuries

suffered by the appellant were due to the accident with the vehicle in

question and as such, the counsel for the appellant craves the indulgence

of this Court to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and award

adequate compensation to him.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also

perused the record of this appeal.

To prove the accident in question, the appellant has placed

reliance upon copy of the DDR Ex.P-53 which was lodged by Barma Nand,

cousin of the appellant which reveals that the scooter driven by the

claimant struck against a tree on the left side of the road while he could not

control the scooter on seeing an Esteem car of silver colour coming from

the opposite direction and the occurrence in question took place all of

sudden and no body was at fault. The appellant has not examined Sh.

Barma Nand for the reasons best known to him. On the other hand,

respondents No.1 and 2 have stepped into the witness box and have

unequivocally denied the involvement of Honda City Car PB-09-E-0678 in

the accident in question. There is no other evidence on record to prove the

factum of accident in question. The evidence of PW-2 Dr. Sameer Sadiq

and PW-4 Dr. Tarsem Singh, Orthpaedic Surgeon is of no help to the

appellant to establish the fact that the accident was caused by the car in

question because the aforesaid doctors have opined only with regard to the

nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and it is no where mentioned
FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M) 5

by them that the injuries were caused due to the accident in question.

There is no other evidence in favour of the appellant which allegedly has

been ignored by the Tribunal. Thus, I find no fault with the findings of the

Tribunal.

No merit. Dismissed.

August 11, 2009                          (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps                                               JUDGE
 FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M)   6