IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4272 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.10.2011 Mukesh Kumar ....Appellant Versus Pawan Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.AK Jindal, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Y.S.Turka, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.RK Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) CM No. 18242-CII of 2010 Despite notice, reply has not been filed so far. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 36 days in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. FAO No. 4272 of 2010 The present appeal has been filed against the impugned Award dated 14.10.2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala whereby the claim petition of the appellant was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal has dismissed his claim petition on the ground of delay in lodging FAO No. 4272 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the FIR. He has further pointed out that the injured-appellant was unconscious and as such, the statement could not be recorded. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no document on record to show that the claimant was unconscious. Further he has not been able to place on record any document to prove that the alleged vehicle was involved in the accident. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully scrutinised the record of the learned Tribunal. The three material witnesses Ashok Kumar, pillion rider, Balbir Singh, the eye witness and Pawan Kumar father of the claimant/appellant, who as per the claim petition removed the injured to the hospital, have not been examined for the reasons best known to claimant/appellant. The best and primary evidence available with the appellant has been withheld leaving the Court with no alternative but to draw adverse inference against him. There is no document on record on the basis of which, it can be conclusively stated that the appellant was unconscious at the time of admission in the hospital. Rather, perusal of MLR suggests that the patient i.e. Claimant was conscious and well oriented. Delay of more than 5 days in lodging the FIR, not to examine the material witnesses and reading of the MLR make the case of the appellant doubtful. As such, there is no merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 14.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE