Subhash Chand vs Shri Sat Parkash And Others on 18 December, 2008

FAO No.59 of 2004                        1



    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
              HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                                     FAO No.59 of 2004
                                     Date of decision: 18.12.2008

Subhash Chand                                       ...Appellant
                         Versus

Shri Sat Parkash and others                         ...Respondents


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:    Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.
            Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. A.G. Haryana
            for respondents No.2 & 3.

Rajan Gupta, J.

This appeal emanates from an award dated 24th November,

1999, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, whereby the

compensation claimed by the appellant for damage to his Maruti Car

bearing No.DL-1C-6425 has been declined.

The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant had

not been able to discharge the onus of proving that accident had

occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the bus.

The only evidence produced by the appellant was a

photograph to prove the accident. However, the said photograph was

disbelieved by the Tribunal as the version of the appellant was at

variance with the photograph produced before the court.

Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. A.G. Haryana has contended that

there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the Haryana

Roadways bus was at fault in causing the accident. According to him, a
FAO No.59 of 2004 2

damaged car was parked in the middle of the road on a foggy day. The

accident occurred due to this reason.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing

the record, I am of the considered view that the appellant has miserably

failed to prove that accident occurred due to any fault of Haryana

Roadways bus. This court, therefore, does not find any reason to

interfere with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. It is quite clear

that the appellant has not been able to discharge the onus to prove that

his car was damaged due to rash and negligent driving on the part of

Haryana Roadways bus. Admittedly, there was no one travelling in the

car at the time, the alleged accident took place. There is no assertion

that anybody was injured in the said accident. This fact lends credence

to the stand taken by the counsel for respondents No.2 & 3.

No merit.

Dismissed.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
December 18, 2008
‘rajpal’