1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1780 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:28.01.2011 Harish Kumar ....Appellant versus Ved Parkash and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.J.S.Thind, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Bawa, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is at the instance of the owner of the vehicle contending that the petitioner's file was not maintainable and that further the award passed was untenable since the claimant had not established that he had suffered any injuries. 2. The non-maintainability of the petition is urged on the ground that the appellant was a minor at that time when the case was filed and he had not been described properly through a guardian and the procedure prescribed under Order 32 had not been followed. On this contention, the evidence was that he had been born on 03.12.1974 and reliance was made on a school leaving certificate. The Tribunal rejected FAO No.1780 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - the said school leaving certificate on the ground that it cannot be spell a conclusive proof of the date of birth. His father namely Mangat Ram gave a statement relating to the date and the Court held that it was not possible to believe his evidence also. The Tribunal had observed that he had looked at the party and by appearance, he seemed like a major. 3. I cannot but express my disdain in the manner in which the plea regarding minority was considered by the Tribunal. If there was a contention that he was a minor and proof had been given to the age, the Court could not have taken the assessment of age by appearance. It is rather bizarre way of determining the age. I will not, however, make that to be a major impediment at this stage, for, the appeal is filed by the very same person in his capacity as a major and I will let the issue relating to the minority as irrelevant now for the present. There was no other procedural difference for a Court to follow except that the interest of the minor shall be properly protected and duly represented through guardian. The very act of preferring the appeal by the same person, I would understand as a ratification of the proceeding taken against him and I will not allow a quondam minor to take up a plea that the proceedings were void ab initio or illegal. I, therefore, do not find that the issue of minority during the time of trial to be of any relevance. 4. The fact of accident itself was not in dispute. The claimant contended that he had suffered fracture of both bones in his right leg and he had been taking treatment in a private hospital at Sirsa and the doctor had been examined in this case as PW1. Dr. Grover gave evidence to the effect that the claimant was suffering from fracture of both bones of his FAO No.1780 of 1992 (O&M) - 3 - right leg and he had been plaster paris for about three months. He had also spoken about the fact that the patient must have spent about Rs.4,000/- to 5,000/- towards medicines and hospital charges. He had also certified that he could not have worked as a electrical mechanic when he remained under his treatment. The contention urged in appeal by the learned counsel is that x-rays had not been filed and the claimant could not be taken to have suffered any injury in the accident. He denied the fact that there was any fracture. I cannot allow this objection to be taken now for in the entire length of cross-examination taken against PW1, there is not even a suggestion that he had no fractures and that it was imaginary injury that the claimant was complaining of. There is only a general denial towards the end of the cross-examination of the doctor that he was making the statement at the instance of the petitioner and that he was deposing falsely. I cannot understand this omnibus suggestion to mean that no injury had been caused to the claimant by virtue of the accident. PW2 himself had spoken about the fact of injuries and how how he had been in plaster paris and he could not work during that period. I have seen through the cross-examination and there also I do not find any suggestion to him that there was faking any injury. The suggestion, however, was that no accident had been caused by the first respondent and that he had filed a false petition against him. 5. The Tribunal had assessed a compensation of Rs.30,000/- that included a loss of income of about a year when the claimant contended that he could not work and also included the claim for pain and suffering and medical expenses. The overall compensation FAO No.1780 of 1992 (O&M) - 4 - determined at Rs.30,000/- conforms to evidence and I find no reason to interfere with the same. The appeal is dismissed affirming the award passed by the Tribunal. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.01.2011 sanjeev