FAO No.1211 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.1211 of 2002 Date of decision: December 10, 2008 Lajwant Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 30th August, 2001, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur rejected the claim of the appellant for compensation in respect of loss caused to his Auto Rickshaw bearing No. PB-07-C-4389. The claim arises out of an accident which occurred on 15th December, 1997 between the aforesaid Auto Rickshaw and a bus belonging to Punjab Roadways bearing No. PB-12-C-9754. Three occupants of the Auto Rickshaw died in the accident. The claim petitions were filed in respect of the deceased and compensation was granted to them as negligent driving of the driver of bus stood established. FAO No.1211 of 2002 2 The appellant in the present case, however, claimed compensation only in respect of damage caused to the Auto Rickshaw. This claim was, however, declined by the court below on the ground that the claim petition was preferred after almost two years of the accident, no effort was made to get the Auto Rickshaw released on spurdari, the vehicle was not insured and the evidence of the witnesses who deposed for the claimant, was found doubtful. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the award on the ground that evidence of AW1, AW2 and AW3 had been wrongly disbelieved by the court below. AW2 and AW3 were the mechanics of sufficient experience and had deposed in detail regarding the damage caused to the Auto Rickshaw. After giving careful thought to the case, I am of the considered view that evidence of AW2 and AW3 inspires no confidence. AW2 deposed in his cross-examination that he had not brought any receipt book to show that he was paid Rs.4000/- as labour for repairing the Auto Rickshaw. AW3 admitted in his cross- examination that he had neither inspected the three-wheeler nor he had prepared any estimate in writing. He also admitted that he was not an authorized dealer. This apart, while the ownership of the vehicle was shown in the name of the appellant Lajwant Singh, the insurance policy, which was produced in court, was in the name of Jagdish Kumar. FAO No.1211 of 2002 3 In view of the serious discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, I do not find it a fit case for interference in appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE December 10, 2008 'rajpal'