IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4945 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:28.03.2011 Inderjeet Singh ....Appellant versus Kuldeep Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of a petition for compensation in a case where the claimant urged that he suffered a fracture in his hand by coming in collision with a vehicle belonging to the respondents. The respondents denied the accident. The accident was said to have taken place on 07.01.2006 and a complaint was filed nearly 5 months later. The claimant relied on the evidence of PW4, who was said to a traveller along with the appellant but the Tribunal rejected this evidence as unworthy of acceptance. On the other hand, the driver of the alleged offending vehicle had also examined himself and had given evidence to the effect that his vehicle was never involved in the accident. FAO No.4945 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The learned counsel states that Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and the Court shall normally accept the involvement of the vehicle as established, if the case had also been registered by the police. While the Tribunals invariably afford a certain value to the fact of registration of a complaint, it cannot be decisive to hold that an accident must always be taken as established by the only fact that a case is registered. It is essentially a matter of evidence. The Tribunal was not convinced about the quality of evidence. I see no better material before me for drawing a favourable inference to the cause of the claimant that the accident involving the particular respondent's vehicle was established. It may have been that the claimant suffered an injury due to a motor accident but even hard cases would require a modicum of evidence on which the Tribunal could safely pass an award. The evidence given by the claimant for the delay in filing the FIR that the respondent was promising to take care of the medical expenses was rejected by the Tribunal as again not a credible evidence. I do not find any reason to differ from the view expressed by the Tribunal. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.03.2011 sanjeev