FAO No.4959 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH F. A. O. No. 4959 of 2003 Date of Decision: December 05, 2008 Ankit Chadha ...........Appellant Versus Sushil Kumar and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Ashok Gupta,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the New India Assurance Company Ltd. * * * Sabina, J. This is an appeal against the award dated 22.7.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amabla (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition filed by Ankit Chadha, claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident, was dismissed. The case of the claimant, as stated in the claim petition, in brief is that on 17.11.1999, claimant was going from his shop towards his residence at about 11.30 A.M. When he reached near the shop of Amrit Lal on his motor cycle No. HR 01 F-2233, he slowed down his motor cycle on account of traffic on the road. In the meantime, truck No. HR-37A-1111 FAO No.4959 of 2003 2 came from behind and struck against the motor cycle driven by the claimant. As a result of this, claimant suffered multiple injuries. Hence, the claim petition was filed. On notice, respondents filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1. Whether the claimant had sustained injuries in an accident caused by truck no. HR-37-1111 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, if any and from whom, the claimant is entitled to be received? OPP 3. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR-3. 4. Relief." Parties led their evidence in support of their case and vide the impugned award, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant. Hence, the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal had erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant. The claimant has been successful in proving his case. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the claim petition had been filed by the claimant in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2 and, thus, the same had been rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record photocopies of the claim petition; the written statement of FAO No.4959 of 2003 3 respondents No. 1 and 2 and the statements of witnesses recorded before the Tribunal. A perusal of the claim petition reveals that the same, except para No. 9, is in a typed form. In response to para No. 9 i.e. name and address of Police Station in whose jurisdiction accident took place or was registered, it has been written in hand as under:- "Accident took place at Ambala City, but as claimant was shifted to Delhi, a report was made to Delhi Police by hospital authorities and statement of claimant was recorded by police." Claimant failed to produce on record any FIR or DDR with regard to the accident in question. Complaint (Exhibit P32) made by the complainant to S.P. Ambala has also not been duly proved by examining any officials of the said office of S.P. Ambala. Complainant has failed to prove the mode of submission of the complaint in the said Office of S.P. Ambala. Placing of mere carbon copy on record of the complaint was not enough. Claimant appeared in the witness box as PW5. A perusal of his cross- examination reveals that he admitted it as correct that he used to get his vehicle insured from Harinder Gulati (respondent No.2). He further admitted that the name of the eye witness was written in column No. 24 in his hand-writing. The said alleged eye witness was not examined by the complainant before the Tribunal. He denied the suggestions as to whether Tarun Gulati was a relation of Harinder Gulati, respondent or not. It has also been observed by the learned Presiding Officer that the witness instead of focussing his attention to the questions was generally staring at the face of his counsel apparently to seek instructions by signs or FAO No.4959 of 2003 4 signal. The witness was asked many a times to keep his attention focus on questions without looking here and there. A provision has been incorporated in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to provide speedy compensation to the victims of a road side accident. However, in order to succeed, claimant is required to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Respondent No. 2 was known to the claimant. Respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and the owner of the truck in question, respectively, filed their joint written statement but were later proceeded ex-parte. It has not been proved on record that any criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending truck. From the above mentioned facts, it is evident that the claim petition had been filed by the claimant in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2. As such, the learned Tribunal had rightly decided issue No. 1 against the claimant in favour of the respondents. The said finding of the learned Tribunal calls for no interference. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Sabina ) Judge December 05, 2008 arya FAO No.4959 of 2003 5