FAO No. 4063 of 2007 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 4063 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.4.2010 Jaswinder Singh and another ... Appellant vs Mrs. Kashma Rani and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S. N. Gaur, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the insurance company. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 23.7.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) whereby the appellants, who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle, were held liable to pay the compensation. Briefly the facts are that on 18.3.2005, claimant Kashma Rani was returning to her home. At about 5.40 p.m., when she reached in front of I.B.P. Petrol Pump, Kurukshetra, appellant no. 1 Jaswinder Singh, who was driving Motorcycle No. HR-07G-2030 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck against her. As a result of which, she fell down and received multiple injuries. At the same time, her husband came on scooter and removed her to Bhola Hospital. After the accident, respondent no. 1 ran away from the spot. A criminal case was also registered by the police by changing the registration number of the motorcycle as HR-07H-787. The petition for claim filed by the claimant was allowed and the appellants were held liable to pay the compensation. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held appellant no. 1 responsible for causing accident and injuries to the claimant. He further submitted that the appellants were falsely implicated in this case and the real culprit Rajneesh had been left by the police. The submission was that the award of the learned Tribunal be set aside as it has failed to record a definite finding regarding involvement of the appellants in the accident. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that award of the learned Tribunal is perfectly justified. The offending FAO No. 4063 of 2007 -2- vehicle was not insured with the insurance company, therefore, the appellants wanted to shift the burden of compensation on the owner of other motorcycle. He further submitted that appellant no. 2 was posted in the police station in the jurisdiction of which the accident took place. He manipulated the change in number of the motorcycle in police records. Still further the submission was that appellant no. 2 inspite of being a member of disciplined forced did not get his motorcycle insured and this was the reason for him to get everything manipulated. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. The main issue in the present appeal is as to who had caused the accident. It is not the case of either of the parties before the court below that they had any enmity with each other. The important witnesses to this accident are the claimant herself and her husband who got her admitted in the hospital. While appearing in the witness box as PW1, she stated that on 18.3.2005 at around 5.40 p.m., when she was going on foot after attending her duty, appellant no. 1, came in a rash and negligent manner on his motorcycle, hit her from the back side. Her husband Ashok Kumar, who appeared as PW3, stated that at around 8.00 p.m. on the day of accident, Bhupinder Singh appellant no. 2, came to the hospital and requested him not to take the name of his son in the FIR. However, as claimant party refused to do so, Bhupinder Singh adopted another method to replace the number of the motorcycle. It is also important to note here that appellant no. 2 was posted in the Police Station, Thanesar, where the FIR in the accident in question was lodged. It is not the case as set up by the appellants that Rajneesh was left by the police rather the police had not challaned appellant no. 2. As the motorcycle of appellant no. 2, who was posted as ASI in the same police station within jurisdiction of which accident took place and the FIR was registered, was not insured and appellant no. 1 was not holding driving license on the day of accident, effort of the appellants to tamper the evidence and to falsely implicate other person in the accident, cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the appellants to be liable for payment of compensation being owner and driver of the offending vehicle are well reasoned and do not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits. 6.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge