F.A.O.No.1700 of 1994 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.1700 of 1994 (O&M) Date of Decision 21.12.2009 Baldev @ Baldev Kumar @ Baldev Raj ...... Appellant VERSUS Mahabir Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Service is complete but none has put in appearance to argue the case, therefore, there is no option except to decide the same in the absence of the parties. Vide impugned order dated 30.03.1994, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') the claim petition preferred by the appellant-claimant (herein referred as 'the claimant') was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.01.1990 claimant alongwith respondent No.1 was unloading earth from the tractor in Ram Nagar, Karnal. At that time, due to imbalance of the tractor, it started jumping on which Mahabir-respondent No.1 asked the claimant to stand on the front portion of the tractor. The claimant acted as per directions issued by the respondent but in the meantime, respondent No.1 moved the tractor carelessly and negligently without any direction or information of the claimant, due to which the claimant fell down and suffered injuries on his F.A.O.No.1700 of 1994 (O&M) 2 left foot as it came between the wall and the tractor, resulantly, the foot was crushed. While condemning the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the appellant has sought compensation for the injuries suffered by him. The claim petition was contested. At least 8 issues were framed. The Tribunal while appreciating the evidence observed that no accident took place at the disclosed place wherein the claimant had received the injuries. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. Having scrutinized the record of the case, it transpires that the first version as given by the claimant himself before the police was that he was working as labourer on the tractor of Joni & Pantgali and he had stood on the front portion of the tractor on the asking of the driver when its front portion had not yet lifted but lateron due to imbalance and rash and negligent driving, it moved as against the wall as a result of which, his left foot was involved in the accident. However, he took contradictory plea in the DDR Ex.R1 before the police while giving a different version and adding that accident was per chance and nobody was at fault. Now the contradictory stand taken by the appellant has stood in his way to debar him from compensation. Once the claimant has failed to prove the rashness and negligence of respondent No.1, a condition essentially to be proved for awarding compensation, as required under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he could not be awarded any compensation. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 21.12.2009 mamta-II