IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO NO.1439 of 2009 Date of Decision: 5.5.2009. Jaswant Singh ..........Appellant Versus M.P.Chand and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. G.S.Nagra,Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). CM No.7168-CII/2009. CM allowed. Delay of 16 days' in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.1439/2009. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 30.8.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing his claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. It is contended by the learned counsel that despite the categoric evidence of PW1 Dr.T.K.Gupta that the appellant had remained admitted in hospital for the multiple injuries suffered by him and the parties had entered into a compromise, the learned Tribunal wrongly dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, I find no illegality in the impugned award. The appellant in the claim petition had alleged that on 20.6.2005 at about 11 am he was driving motorcycle bearing registration no. HR02C 5280 on his way from FAO NO.1439 of 2009 2 Village Mandhar to Jagadhari. When he reached near village Jarodi, another motorcycle bearing registration no. HR02J 7601, being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 came from the wrong side of the road and struck against the motorcycle being driven by the appellant-claimant as a result of which he received injuries on his person. It was further alleged by appellant that he spent more than Rs.50,000/- upon his treatment. Respondents denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving. The learned Tribunal after hearing both sides dismissed the claim petition. The learned Tribunal, ignored the allegations and counter allegations levelled by both sides, holding each other responsible for accident, and was guided by DDR No.22 dated 23.6.2005 (Ex.P2). It was noticed by the learned Tribunal that as per DDR the appellant himself admitted therein that the accident took place per chance and none of the parties was at fault. Further, in my opinion, the testimony of PW1 Dr. T.K. Gupta, who stated that the appellant remained admitted in his hospital from 20.6.2005 to 26.6.2005, has no bearing so far as the negligence on the part of respondent no.1 is concerned. To succeed in his claim petition, the appellant was required to prove negligence on the part of respondent no.1. However, as noticed above, in the wake of admission on the part of appellant recorded in the DDR Ex.P2, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant has failed to prove negligence on the part of the respondent no.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal. No merit. Dismissed. 5.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge