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) 3respondent 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) 4applicable 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