IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M)
Date of Decision:20/2/2009
Rajinder Singh @ Rauki through his father
..........Appellant.
Versus
Gulab Singh and another.
..........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.
Present: Mr.Harinder Sharma,Advocate for the appellant-claimant.
JASWANT SINGH,J.
Appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal challenging the
dismissal of his claim petition by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ambala (for short the Tribunal) vide award dated 28.7.2008 for grant of
compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular
accident involving Mini Truck bearing registration No. HP-16-3456
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), owned and driven by Gulab
Singh-respondent no.1, and insured by respondent no.2-Insurance Company,
Since there is a delay of seven days in filing the appeal, an
application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, bearing CM No.24100-CII
of 2008, has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant-
claimant and for the reasons stated in the application, which is accompanied by
FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M) -2-
an affidavit of Lakhvinder Singh-father of the petitioner, the
application is allowed and delay of seven days in filing the appeal is
condoned.
Facts leading to the filing of claim petition, which led to
the passing of the impugned award are that on 22.6.2006 appellant-
injured claimant, aged 15 years in order to have an ice cream, left his
home and joined his parents at Hamirpur Bus Stand, where they
were already waiting for a bus to go to Naraingarh. In the meanwhile
the offending vehicle owned and being driven by respondent no.1,
Gulab Singh in a rash, negligent manner and at a high speed, came
from opposite side. Due to high speed, the driver could not control
the offending vehicle and hit appellant-claimant. In the process the
claimant was dragged by the offending vehicle to some distance.
Father of the appellant alongwith the crowd that gathered there
retrieved the injured appellant from beneath the offending vehicle in
an unconscious state. He was rushed to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh,
from where, on account of his precarious medical condition, he was
referred to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education &
Research, Chandigarh (PGI) where he remained admitted for three
FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M) -3-
days i.e. from 22.6.2006 to 24.6.2006. Thereafter the appellant-
injured claimant was got admitted to Sant Ram Hospital, Ambala
City on 24.6.2006, where he remained admitted till 22.8.2006. The
claim petition was filed on 23.12.2006 stating therein that appellant
had not fully recovered by that time and was still under treatment,
which had already cost him approximately Rs.2 lacs.
Three months after the accident in question an FIR was
got registered with the police against the offending vehicle in which
respondent no.1 was stated to have been facing trial under Sections
279,337 and 338 IPC.
Appellant filed claim petition no.80 of 2006, in which
the impugned award dated 28.7.2008 came to be passed, dismissing
his claim. Hence the present appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-injured
claimant.
It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that
there was ample evidence on record to prove the involvement of the
offending vehicle in the accident in question but the learned
Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the same and dismissed his
FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M) -4-
claim petition. It is further contended that the appellant is still in
coma, but the learned Tribunal dismissed his claim petition simply
on the ground that there was a delay of three months in lodging the
FIR.
I have carefully gone through the impugned award.
It may be mentioned here that respondent no.1-driver-
cum-owner of the offending vehicle though contested the claim
petition but neither examined himself nor led any documentary
evidence nor did he examine any witness in support of his case.
On the other hand, respondent no.2-Insurance Company
tendered insurance policy as Ex.R-1 and closed its evidence. It was
contended on behalf of respondent no.2-Insurance Company that n o
accident, as alleged, took place with the offending vehicle and the
claim petition had been falsely instituted in collusion with
respondent no.1-driver-cum-owner.
The reasons given by the learned Tribunal for dismissing
the claim petition are well founded and no fault can be found with
the same.
As per claimant’s version the accident had taken place in
FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M) -5-
the presence of his parents. At that time a crowd had also gathered
there. However, none of the witness from general public was
examined.
Though, it was averred in the claim petition that
immediately after the accident the injured appellant was rushed
firstly to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh and thereafter to PGI,
Chandigarh, in support of which Dr. R.C.Jindal, Medical Officer,
Civil Hospital,Ambala City and Dr. S.R. Arora were examined as
PW2 and PW3. Except producing OPD Card/Ticket of PGI, Sant
Hospital and Sarwal Hospital as mark D,E and F respectively and
medical bills, no other documentary evidence was proved by these
witnesses which may indicate that it was a road side accident.
It is common knowledge, as noticed by the Tribunal, that
after an injured is brought to “Emergency” in a State run Civil
Hospital or Medical Institute of PGI’s repute, the first question that
Doctors, while taking history, puts to the attendant(s) is the manner
in which injuries were suffered by the victim. In case, injured is
stated to have received injuries in a road side accident, every
Emergency Medical Officer, sends information to police about
FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M) -6-
arrival of Medico Legal Case.
In this case the injured was brought to Civil Hospital,
Naraingarh/PGI by none else than the father of the appellant-injured
claimant. Nothing has come on record as to what stopped the father
of the appellant from telling the truth vis a vis the accident in
question. Lakhvinder Singh,PW1, father of the appellant tried to fill
up this lacuna by stating that the police was informed about the
accident but his statement was not recorded. This story has rightly
been rejected by the learned Tribunal by observing that if the lower
police staff did not record his statement, he could have reported the
matter to the higher authorities.
Another factor which corroborates the stand of the
respondent no.2-Insurance Company, about the fallacy of the claim
petition, is that the FIR in the instant case was lodged 3 months
after the occurrence of the accident in question. To explain the
delay in lodging the FIR, Lakhvinder Singh,PW-1 stated that he
was busy in connection with treatment of his injured son. This
explanation was also rightly not accepted by the Tribunal by holding
that other relatives/friends could have brought the incident to the
FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M) -7-
notice of the police to get a case registered.
The authority Manoj v. Samunder Singh and others,
2005 ACJ, 520 (Madhya Pradesh) relied upon by the learned counsel
for the appellant to contend that even delay of one year is not fatal to
the appellant’s case, is not applicable to the instant case. In the
reported though the FIR was lodged after one year but the driver had
admitted the involvement of offending vehicle being driven by him
in the accident.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case in
hand and evidence produced by the parties, I am of the considered
opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim
petition and no fault can be found with the same.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal the same is
hereby dismissed in limine.
20.2.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge