IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1485 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:13.10.2010 Ram Chander ....Appellant versus Sukha Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate, for Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr. N.K.Khosla, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition where the claimant contended that he was involved in an accident when a jeep bearing Registration No.HR-05/A-3655 had hit against him and caused him grievous injuries. There was no record of complaint in police station and the Tribunal had merely the evidence of PW1 supported by yet another person, who was said to be walking at the same time and claimed that he was able to recall the particulars of registration number of the vehicle that was involved in the accident. The driver of the vehicle examined himself as RW1 and he gave evidence to the effect that he was coming from Assandh to Karnal by his jeep and when they came near the turn of the village Bansa, he saw that a person was lying on the metalled road and one cycle with a bundle of grass tied to its carrier was also lying near that person. He stopped the vehicle when a passenger in the jeep one Gurbachan Singh said that he knew the injured who FAO No.1485 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - belonged to his village and, therefore, they took the injured person to the Primary Health Centre, at Jundla in the jeep and got him admitted there. The Tribunal believed the evidence of RW1 to say that he had merely helped him to secure admission in the hospital and he was not himself connected with the accident in any way. 2. The learned counsel contends vehemently that he was an illiterate person and, therefore, he did not take steps to have a complaint registered immediately. The claimant was said to have informed his employer soon after the accident and he had made a request to be sent to the police station for registration of the case. Still the complaint had not been registered. The Tribunal referred to the above facts and also referred to the evidence of PW2, who said that he saw the accident and removed him in the jeep which was involved in the accident. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of PW2 as untrustworthy, for, in his evidence PW2 stated that he saw PW1 coming by cycle. PW1 himself said that he was merely pushing his cycle and he was walking at the time when the accident took place. The Tribunal took this contradiction as vital and did not believe the involvement of the insured's vehicle in the accident. Every aspect of the case has been dealt with by the Tribunal and properly appraised. I see no reason to take a different view. The decision of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 13.10.2010 sanjeev