FAO No.59 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.59 of 2004 Date of decision: 18.12.2008 Subhash Chand ...Appellant Versus Shri Sat Parkash and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondents No.2 & 3. Rajan Gupta, J. This appeal emanates from an award dated 24th November, 1999, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, whereby the compensation claimed by the appellant for damage to his Maruti Car bearing No.DL-1C-6425 has been declined. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant had not been able to discharge the onus of proving that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the bus. The only evidence produced by the appellant was a photograph to prove the accident. However, the said photograph was disbelieved by the Tribunal as the version of the appellant was at variance with the photograph produced before the court. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. A.G. Haryana has contended that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the Haryana Roadways bus was at fault in causing the accident. According to him, a FAO No.59 of 2004 2 damaged car was parked in the middle of the road on a foggy day. The accident occurred due to this reason. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that the appellant has miserably failed to prove that accident occurred due to any fault of Haryana Roadways bus. This court, therefore, does not find any reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. It is quite clear that the appellant has not been able to discharge the onus to prove that his car was damaged due to rash and negligent driving on the part of Haryana Roadways bus. Admittedly, there was no one travelling in the car at the time, the alleged accident took place. There is no assertion that anybody was injured in the said accident. This fact lends credence to the stand taken by the counsel for respondents No.2 & 3. No merit. Dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE December 18, 2008 'rajpal'