FAO NO.4530/2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO.4530/2011(O&M) Date of decision: 15.07.2011. Anshul Arora and another ....................Appellants v. Naveen .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.G.C.Dhuriwala,Advocate. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) This order will dispose of FAO No.4530 and 4531 of 2011 as in both these appeals challenge is to the award dated 20.4.2011, arising out of a motor vehicular accident that took place on 12.2.2008 at about 10.45 PM at light point of Sector 45 and 46, Chandigarh. Briefly noticed, the facts of the case are that on 12.2.2008 at about 10.45 PM respondent Naveen alongwith his colleague Deepak Khanna were coming from Mohali to Chandigarh on a Motorcycle bearing registration no.CH-03-J-2114. The said motorcycle was being driven by Deepak Khanna and claimant Naveen was sitting on the pillion. When they were crossing the light point, it is alleged that FAO NO.4530/2011(O&M) 2 appellant no.1-Anshul Arora driving scooter bearing registration no.CH-03-N-8124 (offending vehicle) came to the wrong side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle being driven by Deepak Khanna as a result of which claimant-Naveen fell down on the road and suffered multiple and serious injuries on the right leg and other parts of the body. He was removed to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh for treatment, where he was operated upon on 19.2.2008 and rod was inserted in his right leg. He was discharged from the hospital on 21.2.2008. In the meantime, on 14.2.2008 FIR No.79 under Sections 279, 337 IPC was registered at PS Sector 34,Chandigarh. With these allegations respondent/claimant- Naveen filed a claim petition no.316/2010 alleging that he was doing private job with Spencer's Company,Mohali and earning Rs.6000/- per month and he had spent huge amount on his treatment. He had also made mention of his being operated upon for the injuries received in the aforesaid accident. On the other hand, appellant no.1, Anshul Arora, also filed claim petition no.213/2010 alleging that the said accident had occurred due to jumping of red light by Deepak Khanna, driver of the other vehicle i.e., motorcycle on which respondent/Naveen was sitting as a pillion rider. It was further alleged that by exerting their influence the respondent had been able to get a false FIR lodged, against which appellant no.1 had represented to SSP Chandigarh by sending a registered complaint on 11.3.2008. FAO NO.4530/2011(O&M) 3 The learned Motor Accident Claims, Tribunal on the basis of pleading of the parties framed issues. Both sides led evidence. The learned Tribunal after hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, dismissed the claim petition bearing no.213/2010 filed by appellant no.1 (Anshul Arora) and allowed the claim petition bearing no.316/2010 filed by respondent-Naveen and granted him compensation of Rs.60,000/-(under various head as detailed in the impugned award). Aggrieved against the dismissal of his claim petition and grant of compensation to the respondent, appellant has filed these two appeals. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident in question has taken place due to negligence on the part of the appellant-Anshul Arora. It is further submitted that Deepak Khanna driver of the motorcycle, on which respondent/claimant-Naveen was sitting as a pillion rider, was not examined by claimant-Naveen which raises doubt about the version put forth by him. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I find no merit in this submission. While passing the impugned award the learned trial court has found that the claimant/respondent-Naveen had made a statement before the police regarding the accident on 14.2.2008 at about 3.20 pm FAO NO.4530/2011(O&M) 4 while being admitted in hospital alleging the rash and negligent driving on the part of the scooterist/appellant. The appellant chose to remain silent and did not approach the police on the day of accident or sometime thereafter. It is only on 11.3.2008 that the complainant sent a complaint to SSP Chandigarh regarding the accident. Even that complaint was placed on file as Mark-A. No evidence was led by the appellant to show that this complaint was ever received in the office of SSP Chandigarh. Further, if the appellant was not at fault and still no action was being taken on his alleged complaint dated 11.3.2008, then he could file a criminal complaint. But suprisingly, no such action was ever taken by the appellant. It was further admitted by the appellant in his cross examination that he was facing trial in the FIR lodged at the instance of the claimant-Naveen which further goes to show that after investigation the police, prima facie found substance in the FIR lodged by the claimant-Naveen. As regards the argument that Deepak Khanna, the alleged eye witness who was driving the motorcycle on which Naveen was sitting as a pillion rider was not examined, it is to be noticed that the proceedings under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicle Act are in the nature of an inquiry. Further, it is well settled that it is not the quantity but quality of the evidence which has to be appreciated. In my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal on the basis of material available on record has correctly arrived at the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant- FAO NO.4530/2011(O&M) 5 Anshul Arora. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion, that no case for interfering with the impugned award is made out. No other point has been raised. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit both these appeals are dismissed. 15.7.2011. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge