IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.102 of 2006. Date of decision: 08.03.2010. Ishwar Dass … …Appellant Versus H.R.T.C. & Others … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.H.S. Rawat, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein against the judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT-II, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, dismissing his claim for damages. The claimant pleaded that he was going to attend marriage in village Choru. When he reached near village Bara, a bus driven by Desh Raj belonging to the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, bearing No.HP-37-6857, came from Palampur side and struck him from the back, as a result he fell down and fractured his leg. He was taken to the Civil Hospital, Nadaun for treatment and thereafter he was referred to 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 Dr.Rajinder Prasad Government Medical College and Associated Hospital, Dharamshala, where he remained as an indoor patient from 1.12.2003 to 26.12.2003 and was treated for fracture of tibia right leg. He claimed Rs.five lacs as damages which included Rs.1,25,000/- as medical treatment and loss of income. The learned Court, on appraisal of the evidence and considering First Information Report Ex.PW-3/A, holds that the accident did not occur in the manner as alleged by the complainant. The Court holds that the evidence of the witnesses is unreliable and untrustworthy. To say the least, the learned Tribunal has fallen into an error in discarding the entire evidence holding the First Information Report as the basis. The facts stated therein have neither been proved nor corroborated by any other evidence. It is also by now well settled that proceedings in a Criminal case do not govern the proceedings in a Civil Court. RW-3/A (FIR) has been brought on record on the statement of RW-3 MHC Kuldip Chand. He is not the Investigating Officer as admitted by him. In these circumstances, the veracity of the statement in First Information Report is not established. Overwhelming evidence of the petitioner as also the persons accompanying him establishes as a fact that the petitioner was hit by the fender/bumper of the bus and he sustained injuries. The judgment of the learned Court below is, therefore, set aside. 3 Coming to the quantum of damages awarded, it is unfortunate that the petitioner has not brought on record any evidence to show the ailment for which he was admitted and treated in the hospital and the expenditure incurred on medicines, special attendant and diet etc. At the time of accident, the petitioner himself admits that he is 70 years of age. This, however, does not mean that he is not entitled to any damages whatsoever. The task of this Court is made more difficult by the fact that there is total lack of evidence on record. However, considering the fact that the petitioner suffered fracture/injuries which fact has been established on the record, I deem it appropriate to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner which would cover his expenditure for medicines, special attendant and diet etc. This appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. March 8, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.