IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.661 of 2008. Date of decision: 22.06.2011. Dharuv Singh … …Appellant Versus Smt.Chanchla Devi and Others … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr.Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2: Mr.Abhishek Sood, Advocate vice Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This appeal has been preferred by Dharuv Singh (respondent before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) against the award passed for the death of one Mukesh Kumar who was traveling in the ill fated car DL-2C-1057. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,64,600/- to be recovered from the respondents (appellant herein) and Gurdeep Singh (owner of the vehicle). 2. The owner remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal below and has been impleaded as a proforma respondent in this appeal. The only question 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 urged before me is that the appellant herein was not driving the offending vehicle, but it was deceased Mukesh Kumar who was doing so and in these circumstances no liability could be fastened on him. 3. On the facts pleaded before the learned Tribunal that on 19.11.2002 at around 7.30 P.M., the offending Maruti Car bearing No.DL-2C-1057, which had been driven in rash and negligent manner at a high speed, struck against the Rehra parked on the road side causing injuries to the driver (appellant herein) and fatal injuries to Mukesh Kumar, whose dependants have instituted the present petition. 4. In order to arrive at this finding, the learned Tribunal relied upon Ex.PW-2/A, which is the First Information Report lodged stating that it was the appellant herein who was driving the car, which fact came to his notice at a later point of time and PW-3 Shri Ganesh Kumar, who is the eye witness to the accident and in front of whose shop the accident occurred have identified the appellant herein. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that the testimony of PW-3 Ganesh Kumar cannot be relied upon as it was evening time and it was not possible to identify a person. I have considered the submission made on behalf of the appellant. The accident has taken place in front of the shop of PW-3 Ganesh Kumar and there is nothing on the record which detracts from examination-in-chief identifying the 3 appellant as the person who was driving the vehicle. Though the appellant appeared as DW-1, but his testimony has been unworthy of credence, more especially, in view of the evidence of PW-3 and Ex.PW- 2/A. Having considered the evidence on record, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. June 22, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.