In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 4747 of 2007 Date of decision: July 21, 2008 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant versus Subodh Kumar and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent No.1. A.N. Jindal, J Oriental Insurance Company, Karnal has challenged the award dated 5.9.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, whereby an award to the tune of Rs.5,20,000/- was ordered against the appellant and the respondent No.2-Madan Lal. Award has been assailed by urging that actually the accident took place on account of coming of Rose (a wild animal) in front of the motor cycle and not due to the fault on the part of Madan Lal-respondent No.2 which stands established from DDR Ex.P61 recorded by Madan Lal. Having examined the matter, notwithstanding the fact that Madan Lal lodged DDR Ex.P61 dated 19.5.2004 disclosing that on 14.5.2004 at about 1.30 p.m. when he was returning from U.P. near Toll Tax Barrier one Rose came from the field in front of the motor cycle, and when he tried to save himself, his motorcycle hit the motorcycle of the claimant bearing No.HR-05H-2571, resultantly accident took place. The version of Madan Lal-respondent No.1 does not appear to be believable for the reason that he himself did not step into the witness box to prove the DDR as well as to rebut the statement of the claimant and the eye witness. Statement recorded in DDR Ex.P61 could not be treated to be proved or legally permissible evidence when none including Madan Lal stepped into the F.A.O. No. 4747 of 2007 -2- *** witness box to prove its authenticity. To the contrary, the statement of the complainant and the eye witness are sufficient to prove that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle in question driven by the respondent No.1. Consequently, the Tribunal was right in holding that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of motor cycle No.HR-05N-5811 driven by the respondent No.1. There is no denying a fact appellant was the Insurer of the offending vehicle. Regarding quantum of compensation, it may be observed that the medical bills are the proof of the fact that the injured remained admitted in Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi and had to pay a sum of Rs.3,93,380/- and he was also to get himself treated after coming to home. His earning capacity has also been decreased due to the loss of vision. In the wake of aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. July 21, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge