In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 1487 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: July 10, 2009 Hav. Darshan Singh .. Appellant Vs. Nisar Ahmed and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for the respondent No.3. A.N. Jindal, J Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, vide its award dated 10.8.2007, dismissed the claim petition preferred by the claimant-appellant (herein referred as 'the claimant'). The brief facts of the case are that on 3.10.2005, at about 12.30 p.m. the claimant was going on motor cycle No.PG-29F-0939 from his office towards Arya Chowk, Ambala City, on his correct side and at slow speed. When he reached near Arya Chowk, Ambala City, a Tata 207, bearing registration No.HR-37A-4893, came from the side of Kalka chowk being driven rashly and negligently by Nisar Ahmed-respondent No.1 and struck against his motor cycle. Resultantly, he fell down and suffered injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Tata 207 bearing registration No.HR-37-A-4893 by Nisar Ahmed respondent No.1 causing injuries to Hav. Darshan Singh, as alleged?OPP F.A.O. No. 1487 of 2008 -2- *** 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the claimant is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?OPP 3. Whether respondent No.3-Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of any compensation in view the preliminary objections taken in the written statement?OPR-3 4. Relief. In order to prove the accident, the onus was on the claimant. The claimant in order to discharge the onus, himself appeared as PW-2 and examined Harvinder Singh Criminal Ahlmad in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, with regard to the criminal case pending against respondent No.1. No other witness has been examined in order to prove the accident, though Major Rajesh and Major Sachin Puri, admittedly were following the claimant and got him admitted in the hospital. It is evident from the hospital record that the claimant was brought by Major Rajesh and Major Sachin Puri and they had given the history of accident in the hospital stating that the accident took place with maruti car. The claimant has also mentioned in his claim petition that when he met with the accident, he was being followed by Major Rajesh and Major Sachin Puri. Thus, this fact stands like a rock that the accident took place on account of involvement of the maruti car but the claimant has contradicted this fact in the FIR, wherein he introduced a different story while stating that accident took place with Tata 207 bearing registration No.HR-37-A-4893. Neither Major Rajesh nor Major Sachin Puri were examined as witnesses. It has not been explained as to what prompted the claimant to with hold best evidence of these two witnesses. They were from his own department and if they had stepped into the witness box then they could have given the true version. As such, bald statement without any corroboration is hardly sufficient to prove the negligence of the respondent No.1. The FIR, which has been recorded after 31 hours can be said to be an exaggeration and concoction of a new version. It is also well settled by now that the FIR itself is not perse admissible in evidence and could be proved by summoning any official of F.A.O. No. 1487 of 2008 -3- *** the police department, but it has not been proved according to law. Consequently, it is observed that the observations made by the Tribunal on all the issues are correct and do not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. July 10, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge