F.A.O.No. 3716 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O.No. 3716 of 2001 Date of Decision :24.12.08 Gurdeep Singh Appellant. VERSUS Bhim Singh and others. Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. --- Present:- Mr.H.S.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate assisted by Mr. B.K.Singal, Manager, and Mr. Baljit Singh, Deputy Manager, for United India Insurance Company Limited. --- 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? JORA SINGH,J. Gurdeep Singh, preferred this appeal against the award/order dated 31.3.2001, whereby claim petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, was dismissed. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that on 28.9.1994, he was returning from Delhi in bus No. DL-1P- 1521. Bus was being driven rashly and negligently. Driver was requested to drive the bus with care and caution but continued to drive bus at a very high speed. When the bus F.A.O.No. 3716 of 2001 2 was at a distance of eight kilometer from Hansi, then in the meantime, Haryana Roadways Bus No. HR-38-1266 came from the side of Delhi which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 then both the buses had struck against each other. Accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. D.D.R.No. 9 dated 29.9.1994 was got recorded in Police Station Sadar, Hasni. In the accident, appellant received multiple grievous injuries and got admitted in Komet Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Pusa Road, New Delhi. Appellant was operated upon twice firstly on 29.9.1994 and then on 10.10.1994. Rs.1,50,000/- was spent on the treatment. Appellant was earning Rs.5500/- per month. Upon notice, respondent No.1 filed written statement by denying all the allegations of the claimant. In fact, on 28.9.1994 respondent No.1 was driving the bus of Haryana Roadways from Anupgarh to Delhi. When his bus reached near Garhi Minor i.e. about six kilometer away from Hansi, then truck No. HR-20A-6411 was seen in stationary condition. Suddenly, an animal came in front of the bus and to save that animal, bus was taken towards left side of the road and to avoid accident with the truck, bus was taken towards right side. In the meantime, bus Nos. DL-1P-1529 came from back side. Bus was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.6 and struck against the bus of respondent No.1. Accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No.1. In fact, the accident F.A.O.No. 3716 of 2001 3 was due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. DL-1P-1529. Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed separate written statement by denying all the allegations of the claimant. Respondent No.7 filed separate written statement and contested the claim petition by pleading that bus No. DL-1P- 1529 was not insured with the answering respondent. Then on, claim petition was got amended by changing the bus No. DL-1P-1529 to DL-1P-1521. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. HR-38/1266 by respondent No.1?OPP 2. Whether the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-1P-1521 by respondent No.6?OPP 3. To what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioner is entitled to?OPP 4. Relief. Evidence was led by both the parties. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and evidence on the file, claim petition was dismissed vide order dated 31.3.2001. Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated 31..3.2001, appeal was preferred by Gurdeep Singh. F.A.O.No. 3716 of 2001 4 Notice was issued to the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on the file very carefully and thoroughly. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant was traveling in bus No. DL-1P-1521. Bus was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1. At the time of accident, bus was at a distance of 7/8 kilometer from Hansi. Driver was requested to drive the bus at slow speed but he did not agree. In the meantime, bus No. HR- 38/1266 came from the side of Delhi and the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. Both the buses had struck against with each other. In the accident, appellant received injuries. Evidence on the file was not properly appreciated, qua accident. D.D.R.No. 9 dated 29.9.1994 was got registered. On account of injuries, appellant remained admitted in the hospital and was operated upon twice. Requested to accept the appeal. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that respondent No.1 while driving Haryana Roadway bus No. HR-38/1266 and the bus was at a distance of six kilometer from Hansi towards Delhi then truck No. HR-20A- 6411 was seen in stationary condition then suddenly, an animal came in front of the bus and to save that animal, bus was brought on the left side, then to avoid accident with the truck, he took the bus to right side. In the meantime, bus No. DL-1P-1529 came from back side. Bus was being driven F.A.O.No. 3716 of 2001 5 rashly and negligently by respondent No.6 and the bus was struck against the bus driven by respondent No.1 from back side. In the accident, appellant did not receive injury. Petition was rightly dismissed. As per evidence on the file, appellant was travelling in the bus No.DL-1P-1529 and the bus was of a private company. Bus No. HR-20A-6411 was being driven by respondent No.1. As per written statement of respondent No. 1, but question is whether there was an accident as pleaded by the appellant or the accident was as per pleadings of the respondents. Gurdeep Singh appellant on oath stated that in a private bus of Kataria Tours and Travels bearing No. 1521 he was travelling from Shri Ganganagar to Delhi. Bus was being driven by Amar Singh. When the bus had reached at some distance ahead of Hansi, at about 2.30 A.M. on 29.9.1994, then a bus of Haryana Roadways was seen going ahead of the Bus No. DL-1P-1521. Bus No. DL-1P-1521 was being driven rashly and negligently. Driver of Haryana Roadways Bus had applied brakes suddenly. Private bus of Kataria Tours and Travels No. DL-1P-1521 had struck against the Haryana Roadways bus from behind and in the accident, he had suffered multiple grievous injuries. But story put forward by the appellant is contrary to the evidence. According to the appellant, bus No. DL-1P-1521 was of Kataria Tours and Travels and there was an accident of this bus with Haryana Roadways Bus No.HR-38/1266. Case of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was that accident was of Haryana F.A.O.No. 3716 of 2001 6 Roadways bus with a private bus. D.D.R.No. 9 dated 29.9.1994 was recorded in Police Station Sadar,Hansi, but report was not summoned by the appellant. By summoning Rapat No. 9 of 29.9.1994, appellant was required to establish that he was travelling in bus No. 1521 and the accident of that bus was with the bus of Haryana Roadways. Best evidence was available with the appellant but the same was not brought on the file for the best reasons known to the appellant. As per claim petition appellant was travelling in bus No. DL-1P-1521 and there was an accident of this bus with the bus of Haryana Roadways, but while appearing in Court appellant stated that Haryana Roadways bus was ahead of the bus in which he was traveling. Driver of Haryana Roadways had applied brake and then the bus in which he was travelling had struck against the Haryana Roadways bus from back side. As per claim petition, accident was at about 5/5.30 A.M. on 28.9.1994 but appellant on oath stated that accident at about 2.30 A.M. on 29.9.1994. Initially, claim petition was filed with the allegation that accident was with bus No. DL-1P-1529, but later on, by way of amendment, number of the bus was got amended from DL-1P-1529 to DL-1P-1521, Bhim Singh Driver and Suresh Kumar Conductor of the bus of Haryana Roadways appeared in Court and categorically stated on oath that accident was with a private bus that struck, against the bus of Haryana Roadways No.DL-1P-1529. As per respondents number of the private bus was DL-1P-1529 that means the F.A.O.No. 3716 of 2001 7 appellant failed to prove as to whether the accident was of bus No. DL-1P-1521 of Kataria Tours and Travels with the bus of Haryana Roadways. Whereas evidence on the file shows that the accident was between the Haryana Roadways bus and Private bus No. DL-1P-1529, whereas the case of the appellant is that he was travelling in bus No. DL-1P-1521. To support the version of the appellant, there is no cogent and convincing evidence on the file either in the shape of documentary or oral evidence. If we presume that there was an accident, then the question is whether the appellant had received injuries in the accident . Number of passengers were in both the buses, but no one came forward to support the version of the appellant. No documentary proof i.e.M.L.R., medical bills etc on the file that the appellant had received injuries in the accident and remained admitted in any hospital. Evidence on the file was rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. No other submission was put forward. In view of all discussed above, there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned award of the Tribunal and the same is upheld. Appeal without merit is dismissed. 24.12.2009 ( JORA SINGH) Anoop JUDGE