F. A. O. No. 2550 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : F. A. O. No. 2550 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 21, 2009 Neki Ram .... Appellant Vs. Madan Lal and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 12454-C-II of 2009 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 131 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : This is appeal by owner-cum-driver of one of the two offending vehicles involved in the accident assailing Award dated 10.10.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar. Respondent no.2 – insurance company, with whom the vehicle of the appellant was insured, has been absolved of its liability. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. F. A. O. No. 2550 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the appellant contended that accident involving the vehicle of the appellant is not proved because the claimant- respondent no.1 did not examine any other witness in support of his claim, although many other persons had gathered at the spot and there were other occupants in the same vehicle. The contention cannot be accepted for many reasons. Firstly, the contention is factually incorrect because the claimant has examined one more witness namely Vijay Pal (PW-2), who was also occupant of the same vehicle. He has corroborated the testimony of the claimant, who himself appeared as PW-1. Secondly, the evidence of the claimant stands unrebutted. Thirdly, the appellant himself did not step into the witness-box and therefore, very strong adverse presumption arises against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the claimant was not travelling in the vehicle as fare paying passenger because the claimant and other occupants of the vehicle were going to attend a rally and fare is never paid when persons go in goods' vehicles to attend rally. The contention cannot be accepted because it cannot be assumed that no fare is paid by persons travelling in a goods' vehicle to attend a rally. On the other hand, the claimant and the other witness examined by him have stated that they had collected money on the preceding evening and paid the same to appellant herein as fare for going to the rally on next day. The claimant was thus travelling in the goods' vehicle as fare paying passenger and therefore, terms and conditions of insurance policy were infringed by the appellant and consequently, insurer- respondent no.2 was rightly absolved of its liability. It may also be noticed that even if it be assumed for a moment, for the sake of argument only, that fare had not been paid by the claimant and other occupants, even then the insurer-respondent no.2 cannot be held liable because appellant was carrying passengers in goods' vehicle, which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. F. A. O. No. 2550 of 2009 (O&M) 3 In view of the aforesaid, finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. May 21, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE