IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) 475 of 2005. Decided on September 21, 2010 Rukmu Deen ..Appellant-Claimant. Versus Kishan Singh Kundlas & others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants Sh. Hoshiar Kaushal, Advocate, vice Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For respondent No. 1 Mr. Amardeep, Advocate, vice Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For respondent No. 3 Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award, dated 1.9.2005 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirmaur at Nahan, whereby claim petition filed by the appellant, seeking compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him, in an accident of truck No. HP-18-4841, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3, has been dismissed. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 2. Appellant-claimant pleaded that on 30.12.2003, when he was going to his place of work and reached near village Matralion, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, a truck, bearing registration No. HP-18-4841, which was being driven by respondent No. 2, Amar Chand, appeared from factory side and a plank sticking out of that truck, hit him, because of which he sustained multiple injuries, resulting in his permanent disability. He claimed Rs.8,00,000/- by way of compensation. Owner and driver of the truck denied the involvement of the truck, in the accident. Insurer took the plea that driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. 3. Parties went to trial. Learned Tribunal held that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence. However, learned Tribunal held that there was no evidence, connecting the truck, in question, with the alleged accident and, therefore, dismissed the claim petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Appellant-claimant himself appeared in the witness box and stated that he had been hit by a plank sticking out of the truck and that number of the truck was HP-18-4841. He also stated that the truck was being driven by respondent Amar Chand alias Chhotu. His statement was corroborated by PW-2 Nadeem Khan, who stated that he was - 3 - accompanying him (appellant) at the time, when the accident took place. Appellant examined one more witness, namely PW-4 Ali Hassan, driver of another truck, bearing registration No. HR-58-2428, who testified that one plank, used in his truck, had been borrowed by respondent No. 2 Amar Chand, from the conductor of his truck and this fact was disclosed to him by the conductor, when he inquired as to why rope had been used along with three planks, on the back side of the truck, which was loaded with bags of rice. He stated that on 30.12.2003, respondent Amar Chand loaded rice at Sheller Rampur Ghat, in his truck No. HP-18-4841 and left for Solan and that on that very day, soon after loading of respondent’s truck, he also loaded his truck with rice and followed respondent’s truck. He stated that when on reaching Solan, he asked Amar Chand, respondent as to why he had not returned the plank, which he had borrowed from his conductor, the latter told that he forgot to return the same and that that plank had fallen on the way, after hitting some persons. It has come in evidence that besides hitting the claimant, plank, sticking out of the truck, had hit another person, named Matloob Ahmad, who died as a result of the said hitting. 6. Amar Chand appeared as RW-3 and testified that though he had carried loaded rice from the aforesaid Sheller on the aforesaid date, but denied having gone to Solan along - 4 - the route, on which accident is alleged to have taken place. He stated that he first went to the house of owner of the truck and then adopted a different route to go to Solan. His statement cannot be believed, for the reason, that PW-4 Ali Hassan, very categorically stated that Amar Chand, respondent followed the same route, as was followed by him. Place of accident falls on the route, followed by PW-4 Ali Hassan. This part of the statement of Ali Hassan, was not subjected to cross examination and, therefore, there should be no reason to disbelieve the same. 7. Learned Tribunal has disbelieved the testimony of appellant-claimant, with the reasoning that in the FIR, number of the truck does not find mention, though the witness has testified that he had disclosed the number to the police at the time of lodging the FIR. View, taken by the learned Tribunal, is not correct. In fact, FIR was not lodged by the appellant, but by a police official, who, on getting information that one person had been hit by a plank, sticking out of a truck, went to the place of Matloob Ahmad, who had died on account of injuries sustained due to hitting by that plank and it was there that he came to know that besides hitting said Matloob Ahmad, plank had hit some other persons also. 8. In view of the above discussed evidence, appeal is accepted, finding of learned Tribunal that truck of - 5 - respondents was not involved in the accident, is set aside and it is held that accident took place, because of acts of rashness and negligence, on the part of respondent Amar Singh, while driving the truck, in question. Matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal, with a direction to decide the question, whether the appellant sustained any injuries in the accident, in question, and, if so, to what amount of money, he is entitled by way of compensation, and to pass the award accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 28.10.2010. September 21, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.