FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 11.8.2009 Mulkh Raj ......Appellants(s) Versus Yadvinder Singh & others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.16405-CII of 2009 For the reasons mentioned, the application is allowed. Order dated 10.7.209 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. FAO No.1435 of 2009 This appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant challenging the impugned award whereby the claim application filed by him was dismissed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar holding that the claimant has failed to prove that he sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of Honda City Car bearing No.PB-09-E-0678 by respondent No.1 in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 20.5.2006. Briefly stated, as per the averments, on 20.5.2006 the appellant along with one Bihari Lal was going towards Ghanauli from his village on scooter No.PB-12-D-0501 and when they reached near the turn of village Ahmadpur after crossing the bridge of Bhakra Canal, a Honda car bearing No.PB-09-E-0678 being driven by respondent No.1 came from Ghanauli side in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the scooter of the claimant-appellant, as a result of which both of them FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M) 2 sustained injuries. The claimant-appellant was taken to Civil Hospital, Ropar and then to Parmar Nursing Home, Ropar. It was also stated that DDR No.13 dated 21.5.2006 was lodged in Police Station Sadar Ropar. It was further claimed that the appellant was permanently disabled and he spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- on his treatment.The appellant also sought compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the aforesaid accident. The claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing separate written statements. Respondents No.1 and 2 pleaded that no accident took place with the car in question and a false DDR was recorded in this regard to get the compensation illegally. Respondent No.3 denied the accident in question. Respondent No.3 also raised other objections. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the appellant had failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to establish on record that he sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of Honda City Car bearing No.PB-09-E-0678 by respondent No.1 and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. The observations of the Tribunal read as follows: “It is claimed by the claimant that the accident in question took place on 20.5.2006 in the area of Ahmadpur at about 2.30 p.m with Honda Car bearing No.PB-09-E-0678 as a result of which he sustained injuries and was removed to CH, Ropar, but as the doctors were on strike, he was got admitted in Parmar Nursing Home, Ropar. However, a close scrutiny of both oral as well as documentary evidence led by the claimant reveal that the claimant has failed to establish on record that he sustained injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of Honda Car No.PB-09E-0678 by FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M) 3 respondent No.1. The specific stand taken by the respondents is that the said car was never involved in the accident in question. Even in the DDR copy of which is Ex.P-53 lodged by Barma Nand, cousin brother of the claimant reveals that the scooter driven by the claimant struck against a tree on the left side of the road while he could not control the scooter on seeing as Esteem Car of silver colour coming from the opposite direction and the occurrence in question took place all of a sudden and no body is at fault. The claimant has not examined said Barma Nand for the reasons best known to him. Even it is claimed by the claimant that his statement was recorded by the police while he was lying admitted in Parmar Nursing Home, Ropar, but the said statement has also been with held by the claimant. On the other hand, both respondents No.1 and 2 have stepped into the witness box and have unequivocally denied the involvement of Honda City Car No.PB-9-E-0678 in the accident in question. Even the application copy of which is Ex.P-54 was submitted by the claimant on 8.11.2006 after much delay and as such no reliance can be placed upon the same. The claimant has thus, failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to establish on record that he sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of Honda City Car No.PB-09-E- 0678 by respondent No.1 on 20.5.2006 at about 2.30 p.m in the area of village Ahmadpur. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the claimant are not FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M) 4 applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the claimant and in favour of the respondents.” Challenging the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record from which it stands established that the injuries suffered by the appellant were due to the accident with the vehicle in question and as such, the counsel for the appellant craves the indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and award adequate compensation to him. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the record of this appeal. To prove the accident in question, the appellant has placed reliance upon copy of the DDR Ex.P-53 which was lodged by Barma Nand, cousin of the appellant which reveals that the scooter driven by the claimant struck against a tree on the left side of the road while he could not control the scooter on seeing an Esteem car of silver colour coming from the opposite direction and the occurrence in question took place all of sudden and no body was at fault. The appellant has not examined Sh. Barma Nand for the reasons best known to him. On the other hand, respondents No.1 and 2 have stepped into the witness box and have unequivocally denied the involvement of Honda City Car PB-09-E-0678 in the accident in question. There is no other evidence on record to prove the factum of accident in question. The evidence of PW-2 Dr. Sameer Sadiq and PW-4 Dr. Tarsem Singh, Orthpaedic Surgeon is of no help to the appellant to establish the fact that the accident was caused by the car in question because the aforesaid doctors have opined only with regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and it is no where mentioned FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M) 5 by them that the injuries were caused due to the accident in question. There is no other evidence in favour of the appellant which allegedly has been ignored by the Tribunal. Thus, I find no fault with the findings of the Tribunal. No merit. Dismissed. August 11, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE FAO No.1435 of 2009(O&M) 6