FAO No.1211 of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
FAO No.1211 of 2002
Date of decision: December 10, 2008
Lajwant Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 30th
August, 2001, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Hoshiarpur rejected the claim of the appellant for compensation in
respect of loss caused to his Auto Rickshaw bearing No. PB-07-C-4389.
The claim arises out of an accident which occurred on 15th
December, 1997 between the aforesaid Auto Rickshaw and a bus
belonging to Punjab Roadways bearing No. PB-12-C-9754. Three
occupants of the Auto Rickshaw died in the accident. The claim
petitions were filed in respect of the deceased and compensation was
granted to them as negligent driving of the driver of bus stood
established.
FAO No.1211 of 2002 2
The appellant in the present case, however, claimed
compensation only in respect of damage caused to the Auto Rickshaw.
This claim was, however, declined by the court below on the ground
that the claim petition was preferred after almost two years of the
accident, no effort was made to get the Auto Rickshaw released on
spurdari, the vehicle was not insured and the evidence of the witnesses
who deposed for the claimant, was found doubtful.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the award on
the ground that evidence of AW1, AW2 and AW3 had been wrongly
disbelieved by the court below. AW2 and AW3 were the mechanics of
sufficient experience and had deposed in detail regarding the damage
caused to the Auto Rickshaw.
After giving careful thought to the case, I am of the
considered view that evidence of AW2 and AW3 inspires no
confidence. AW2 deposed in his cross-examination that he had not
brought any receipt book to show that he was paid Rs.4000/- as labour
for repairing the Auto Rickshaw. AW3 admitted in his cross-
examination that he had neither inspected the three-wheeler nor he had
prepared any estimate in writing. He also admitted that he was not an
authorized dealer. This apart, while the ownership of the vehicle was
shown in the name of the appellant Lajwant Singh, the insurance policy,
which was produced in court, was in the name of Jagdish Kumar.
FAO No.1211 of 2002 3
In view of the serious discrepancies in the evidence of the
witnesses, I do not find it a fit case for interference in appeal. The same
is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
December 10, 2008
‘rajpal’