F.A.O. No. 4428 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 4428 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.7.2010. Ram Kumar alias Ashok Kumar ....Appellant Versus Udham Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Ms. Seem Pasricha, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. None for respondent No. 3. RAJESH BINDAL, J **** The claimant is in appeal against the award of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Karnal dated 20.8.2008 whereby the claim petition filed by him for grant of compensation was dismissed. Briefly the facts of the case are that Sumer Chand and Ram Kumar alias Ashok Kumar were going in four-wheeler No. HR-45-5824 with their agriculture produce loaded in it for selling at Delhi. They had loaded their agriculture produce in village Khera, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal. Driver of the four wheeler was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. When they reached near village Bahri, the driver of the vehicle lost control and turned the same turtle and the claimants and other occupants of the vehicle received multiple injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed patent illegality in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant as anything which transpired outside the Court has no judicial sanction and further the respondents had not been able to prove on record that any amount was paid to the appellant as compensation on account of the injuries suffered in the accident in terms of the alleged compromise. He further submitted that two persons had suffered injuries in the accident. While deciding the claim petitions filed by both the persons the learned Court below illegally dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant whereas in the case of other injured namely Sumer Chand the claim petition was accepted, though the stand of the respondent even in his case was also that the matter was compromised. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that once the factum of compromise between the parties is proved on record and F.A.O. No. 4428 of 2009 -2- further the receipt of amount of compensation by the appellant is admitted by him in his cross examination before the Tribunal, nothing remained to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. Any dispute can very well be resolved by the parties themselves. It is not that the matter is always required to be brought before the Court for adjudication. In the present case after the compromise the appellant had sworn an affidavit and also received Rs. 22,000/- from respondents No. 1 and 2. This fact was admitted by him in his cross- examination. The aforesaid evidence clinched the issue and nothing more was required to be produced on record by the respondents to justify their stand that the claim petition filed by the appellant was misconceived. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. It has been discussed by the learned Tribunal in Para-18 of the impugned award that the applicant while appearing as PW5 in his cross- examination had admitted that the compromise had taken place in the village Panchayat in which the respondents Udham Singh and Som Nath had paid a sum of Rs. 22,000/- to him. He even admitted the correctness of affidavit Ex.R1 executed by him and given to the private respondents. It has been noticed by the Tribunal that the appellant had specifically mentioned in the affidavit that the payment of amount in that compromise was entirely to his satisfaction. He had given undertaking not to initiate any civil, criminal or claim proceedings against the private respondents. Once this evidence is on record I do not find any illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and dismiss the same. As the appeal itself is without any merit even the applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal are also dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 16.7.2010. JUDGE Reema