FAO No.90 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.90 of 2010 Date of Decision : 04.10.2011 Ashraf Ali .......Appellant Versus Vikram and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, and Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate, for the appellant. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal is against the Award dated 13.05.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, whereby the claim petition of the appellant was dismissed. 2. The claimant-appellant made the averment in the claim petition that the claimant-appellant along with other members of the family boarded the tempo, bearing registration No.HR-67-6116, being driven by respondent No.1, for going to Panipat from his Village Bal Jattan. When they were in the area of Assan turning, a vehicle bearing registration No.HR-06-AN-9225, which was being driven by respondent No.1, the driver, came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner, and hit against the tempo bearing No.HR-67-6116 1 FAO No.90 of 2010 in which the claimant was travelling. The claimant along with many others suffered injuries. It is further the claim of the appellant that he was removed to Dr. Prem Hospital, Panipat. He spent more than a lac of rupees on his treatment, special diet and transportation. He stated his income, before the accident, to be ` 8000 per month. An FIR No. 106 dated 09.05.2008 was also registered at Matlanda, under Sections 279/337 IPC, against respondent No.1. In response, the respondents filed written statements. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. HR-67- 6116 by respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation? If so, from whom and to what amount? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation in view of preliminary objections taken by it in the written statement? OPR-3 4. Relief. 4. From the perusal of the Award, it emerges that the claimant-appellant did not examine even a single witness despite availing four effective opportunities, including two last opportunities. As such, the learned Tribunal was constrained to close the evidence. 2 FAO No.90 of 2010 The claimant himself also did not step into the witness-box to support his claim. There is no reference of any treatment, hospitalization, etc. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to refer to any document with regard to the injuries suffered by him, the treatment taken or any other evidence to substantiate that the accident took place in the manner stated by the claimant-appellant. In view of the fact that the appellant himself did not appear despite four effective opportunities, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant being misconceived, was rightly dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 6. Dismissed in limine. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 04.10.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 3