F.A.O. No.2149 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** F.A.O. No.2149 of 2008 Date of Decision:24.10.2008 Manohar Lal .....Appellant Vs. Ram Gopal and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate for Mr. H.S. Chawla, Advocate for the appellant. **** HARBANS LAL, J. By filing this appeal, the appellant has sought enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh vide the award dated 30.11.2006. The facts giving rise to the claim petition are that on 8.11.2003 at about 9:00 p.m., the claimant Manohar Lal along with members of his family was proceeding in his Maruti Esteem Car No.HP-43-G-0045 driven by him towards Tawa Chowk, Sector-10, Panchkula followed by his father- in-law, Piare Lal in another car No.PB-08-AJ-7182. When they neared Tawa Chowk, a TATA truck bearing registration No.HP-12-9415 came from behind at a fast speed and struck against the car of the claimant. As a result of its impact, the car got badly damaged. On these allegations, the F.A.O. No.2149 of 2008 -2- claimant filed the petition for grant of compensation. This claim petition was resisted by the respondents. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether respondent No.1 by driving truck no.HP-12- 9415 rashly and negligently caused the accident on 8.11.2003 resulting in damage to vehicle Maruti Esteem no.HP-43-G-0045? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved to what amount of compensation claimant is entitled. If so, from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the day of accident? OPR 4. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed the award in the terms as noted supra. Feeling that the amount of compensation is on the lower side, the claimant- Manohar Lal has preferred this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Tribunal with due care and circumspection. The learned Tribunal has observed as under:- “The claimant has also examined Ravinder Bir Singh proprietor of M/s Gurmalik Enterprises, Sector-48, Chandigarh. He has deposed that bill no.858 dated 2.2.2004 Ex.P-10 is prepared by him. But on close scrutiny, it comes out that bill Ex.P10 is not prepared by him as the bill Ex.P-10 bears the signatures of one Parkash whereas it is alleged by Ravinder Bir Singh PW-4 that the same has been prepared by him. If the Bill F.A.O. No.2149 of 2008 -3- Ex.P-10 was prepared and issued by Ravinder Bir Singh as Proprietor of M/s Gurmalik Enterprises then how the same bears the signatures of one Parkash and said Parkash has not been examined by the claimant. Then, again, PW4 has not deposed anything about the issuance of bill no.859 and 860. Though it has been mentioned on bill no.858 as “continue P/2” but on the bills no.859 and 860 neither the date nor vehicle number nor the name to whom it has been issued, have been mentioned to connect the same with the car in question. All these facts create a ring of doubt about the authenticity of the issuance of bill Ex.P-10. Ex.P.4 is the copy of the Mechanical Report prepared by Constable Nafe Singh and as per the said report, after inspecting the vehicle in question, he found that starting system, break, engine and tyres were in working condition, however the vehicle was not in starting condition. He also found that the mud-guard of driver side, window piller, front bumper, head light, indicator, back side mud-guards were damaged and there was dent in the roof of the car. As such it comes out that the driver side of the car was mainly damaged in the accident. There is no mention in this report that the front windshield or the door motors etc. as mentioned in the estimate Ex.P8 and bill Ex.P10 were in broken condition. The claimant has not placed on record the photographs of the car in damaged condition. Thus the mechanical report Ex.P4 and bill Ex.P10 F.A.O. No.2149 of 2008 -4- and estimate Ex.P8 do not tally with each other regarding the damage to the car in question.” To my mind, the above findings do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. That being so, the same call for no interference. As such, this appeal is dismissed in limine. October 24, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE