FAO NO. 4789 of 2008 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 4789 of 2008 Date of order: 16.09.2011 Vinod Kumar ..... Appellant Versus Gulab Singh and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the insurance company. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by Vinod Kumar, claimant against dismissal of his petition, brought under the provisions of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(for short 'the Act'), vide award dated 01.09.2008. The claimant had averred in his petition that on 15.01.2006 his brother Gulab Singh, respondent no.1 went to Jagadhri by car bearing registration No. HR02G/9889. It was driven by Gulab Singh. On their return journey, when they were near the turning to their village, on Pabni road, a stray cow appeared in front of the car. Gulab Singh with a view to save the cow, lost the balance of the car and struck against the tree standing by the side of the road. In the accident, the claimant suffered multiple injuries, regarding which report was lodged with Police Post Rakshak Vihar, Police Station City Jagadhri, vide DDR No.11 dated FAO NO. 4789 of 2008 --2-- 16.1.2006. He has claimed that in the accident, veins of his stomach were damaged. He took treatment from Pardeep Goyal Hospital as also from Gupta Hospital and spent Rs.1,00,000/- in his treatment. He has claimed himself to be 26 years old. He has further claimed that he was a photographer at the time of accident. He has further averred that on account of the injuries, he has become permanently disabled. He has, therefore, sought compensation. The claim petition is resisted by respondent no.2 alone. Respondent no.1, however, filed written statement admitting the accident to have taken place. It is asserted by respondent no.1 that in case the claim petition succeeds, the vehicle was insured with respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 would be liable to compensate the claimant. Respondent no.2 has denied the maintainability of the petition and cause of action with the petitioner to bring the petition. It has also been denied by respondent no.2 that respondent no.1 was having a valid driving licence, fitness certificate and registration certificate of the vehicle in question at the time of accident. It is claimed that the vehicle was being used in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance company. The averments of the claimant with regard to the manner of accident, his suffering injuries and his expenses thereon, are denied alongwith all other averments. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1- Whether the accident was caused due to the involvement of vehicle no.HR02G/9889, as alleged ? OPP FAO NO. 4789 of 2008 --3-- 2- Whether the claimant is entitled to recover any amount of compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident, if so, to what amount and from whom ?OPP 3- Whether the insured violated any terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged, if so to what effect ? OPR-3 4- Relief” Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition vide award dated 01.09.2008 holding that the claimant has failed to satisfy the basic requirement of section 163-A of the Act. The short question for determination in this case is as to whether there is any permanent disability suffered by the claimant on account of this accident. Section 163-A of the Act covers the cases of death and permanent disability. It does not cover any other loss. I have heard Mr. R.S. Mamli, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. R.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance company and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on account of the accident, the appellant suffered perforation in the abdomen. According to him, Dr. T.K. Gupta of Gupta Hospital, Jagadhri operated upon the appellant and a perforation of size 1.5 cm in small intestine was found and was stitched. According to him, this injury would definitely leave permanent incapacity to work, which would amount to disablement. FAO NO. 4789 of 2008 --4-- The statement of Dr. T.K. Gupta, who is said to have been examined as PW-2 by the appellant is not on the file. A copy of the same is taken with the consent of learned counsel for respondent no.2 from the file of learned counsel for the appellant. As per his statement, besides the fact that on operation a perforation of size 1.5 cm was found in small intestine and was stitched, no other material is there to show any permanent disability to have been left by the accident. It just appears in the statement of Dr. T.K. Gupta that the injury if left untreated could have been dangerous to life. This aspect is not relevant to the decision of the claim petition. Injury could have proved to be dangerous is something different than the injury that would have left permanent disability in all events. There is no statement of Dr. T.K. Gupta to the fact that the injury would have left any permanent disability. The claimant also did not go for assessment of permanent disability. In these circumstances, it can be said that there has been no evidence on the record to prove that the claimant suffered permanent disability on account of this accident. Once it is found that the claimant has not suffered permanent disability on account of the accident, a claim petition would not lie under the provisions of section 163-A of the Act. In view of the above, I find no fault with the award of learned Tribunal. The appeal is ,therefore, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 16.09.2011 dinesh