IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2083 of 2009 Date of decision:- 28.07.2009. Krishan Kumar ...Appellant Versus Bhagat Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mr. Surender Dagar, Advocate for the appellant. A.N.JINDAL J. This appeal is directed against the award 31.10.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon whereby the claim petition filed by Krishan Kumar injured for compensation was dismissed. In short, facts are that on 14.02.2005 at 8.00 a.m. the appellant was going with his nephew Rambir as a pillion rider on the motor-cycle, driven by latter. They were at slow speed. In the meantime, respondent No.1 Bhagat Ram while driving the three wheeler bearing No.HR-55C-1410 rashly and negligently came and hit motor-cycle on which the claimant was sitting. The claimant suffered multiple grievous injuries and fractures on left leg, left hand and chest. FIR No.83 dated 16.02.2005 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered at Police Station, City, Gurgaon. The claimant (60 years old) suffered multiple injuries and having spent lot of money, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. The said claim petition was contested by the respondents. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal, vide order dated 01.8.2008 framed the following issues:- FAO No. 2083 of 2009 -2- 1. Whether the accident in question resulting in injuries to the claimant was caused because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-55C-1410 by its driver respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of alleged accident. If so, its effect?OPR-3 5. Relief. The claimant in support of its case has examined Head Constable Brik Bhan (PW1), Assistant Ahlmad Roshan Lal (PW2), he himself appeared as PW3 and examined Dr. Subash Khanna (PW4). After tendering some documents, he closed his evidence. To the contrary, respondent Nos.1 and 2 placed a photocopy of the registration certificate (Mark-A) whereas respondent No.3 tendered the copy of Insurance Policy (Ex.R-1). Heard. The proof of rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No.1 is sine qua non for fastening the liability upon the respondents regarding compensation. In order to prove the accident, the claimant as well FAO No. 2083 of 2009 -3- as his nephew Rambir were the witnesses to the incident. Besides, the claimant has also tendered First Information Report. Out of this evidence, Rambir has been withheld whereas claimant has given a contradictory statement. The version given in the FIR by the claimant is that on the date of accident, he was coming alongwith his nephew on motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR-51P-2003. When they reached near Bhuteshwar Mandir, Gurgaon, then a Santro car being driven by its driver came rashly and negligently and hit their motor-cycle. In the meanwhile, a three- wheeler bearing registration No.HR-55C-1410 or 1510 being driven at a very high speed, came from Sohna Chowk, Gurgaon hit him. Due to which, he suffered injuries. In nutshell, he has found fault with the three-wheeler driver. Whereas the car is stated to have hit from the left side of the motor- cycle. However, the claimant while appearing in the witness box made a contradictory statement that on the said date when he alongwith his nephew were going on motor-cycle and when reached near the Bhuteshwar Mandir, then a three wheeler bearing No.HR-55C-1410 being driven by respondent No.1 Bhagat Ram in rash and negligent manner came and hit them, due to which he suffered injuries. During the cross-examination, claimant further stated that after the accident occurred due to hitting by Santro Car, he had fallen on the ground and became unconscious. The accident, which occurred due to the passing of three wheeler could be disclosed by Rambir only but he has not been examined. Even otherwise, the FIR was lodged after two days of the accident. Therefore, the chances for concoction and exaggeration could not be ruled out. The claimant has changed his stand totally in the claim FAO No. 2083 of 2009 -4- petition as well as in Ex.PA. As such the negligence on the part of respondent No.1-driver of the three wheeler could not be said to be established. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion by holding that the claimant had failed to establish the rashness and negligence of respondent No.1. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. July 28, 2009 (A.N.JINDAL) vj JUDGE