IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 238 of 1993 Date of Decision: April 04,2008 Sardar Singh ...........Appellant Versus New India Assurance and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate and Mr, Vivek Singal, Advocate for respondent No.2 * * * Sabina, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 28.7.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala. Claim petition filed by claimant-Sardar Singh claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident was dismissed. The case of the claimant as stated in the claim petition was that on 17.1.1990, he was standing on the foot path of main bazar near Kohli Sweet Mart, Tripri, Patiala along with Hardev Singh. At about 7.30 p.m., respondent No.1 came from Gurdwara Dukh Niwaran Sahib on a motor cycle at a high speed and without blowing any horn struck his motor cycle against the claimant. As a result of this, claimant suffered serious injuries. Hence, claimant filed the present claim petition. In the written statement, the contentions in the claim petition were denied. FAO No.238 of 1993 -2- On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether Sardara Singh claimant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 17.1.1990 near Kohli Sweet Mart, Main Road Tripri due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving motor-cycle No. PCI 58?OPA 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled and from whom?OPA 3. Whether the driver of the motor-cycle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Relief” Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition. Claimant had been successful in proving his case. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the claimant had lodged DDR Exhibit R1 wherein he had stated that the accident in question has taken place with the motor cycle driven by Mukhtiar Singh and nobody was at fault as the accident had taken place per chance. In this view of the matter, the claim petition filed against Sukhdev Singh alleging him as driver of the motor cycle in question has been rightly dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. Claimant while appearing in the witness box as AW1 has deposed that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Sukhdev Singh while drving the offending motor cycle. As per the FAO No.238 of 1993 -3- claimant, he was standing in front of Shop near Kohli Sweet Mart, Tripri, Patiala on 17.1.1990. At about 7.30 p.m. Sukhdev Singh came there on a motor cycle bearing PCI 58 and struck his motor cycle against the claimant. In his cross-examination, he denied that he had lodged any DDR in Police Station Civil Line Patiala bearing No.10 dated 18.1.1990. The claimant has described himself as retired ASI Punjab Police, Patiala when he appeared in the witness box as AW1. A perusal of Ex.R1, copy of DDR No.10 dated 18.1.1990 reveals that the same was recorded on the basis of the statement of the claimant. It has been averred by the claimant that the motor cycle No. PCI 58 driven by Mukhtiar Singh son of Shangara Singh had struck against him but nobody was at fault as the accident had taken place per chance. He did not want to initiate any proceedings against any one. Although DDR is not a substantive piece of evidence but it can be used for corroborating or discrediting the statement of a witness. DDR, Ex.R1 was recorded on the next day of the accident i.e. 18.1.1990 and is, thus, first version with regard to the accident. Claimant, however, has filed the claim petition in July 1990 and has averred in the claim petition that the accident has been caused by respondent No.1, Sukhdev Singh due to his rash and negligent driving. The fact that an accident has been caused by Sukhdev Singh is not reflected in the DDR, Ex.R1. Claimant is a retired police official and as per his cross-examination, he was fully conscious of the fact that a complaint was to be made to the Police if an accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a vehicle. The claimant, however, in his cross-examination deposed that he had not made any complaint to any FAO No.238 of 1993 -4- authority regarding the accident except filing the claim petition and was making the statement in the Court for the first time regarding the accident. A provision has been incorporated in the Motor Vehicles Act to provide speedy compensation to the victim of an accident but claimant is required to plead and prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. However, in view of Ex.R1, the statement of the claimant fails to inspire confidence. DDR had been recorded by the Officer in discharge of his official duties and there is nothing on record to suggest that the DDR, Ex.R1 has been recorded by the Officer for any extraneous consideration or enimity. AW2, Hardev Singh has been examined by the claimant to corroborate his version regarding the mode of accident. The said witness is neighbour of the claimant. In the DDR, the name of Hardev Singh is not reflected. The said witness has failed to disclose the number of the offending motor cycle while appearing in the witness box. The said witness did not lodge any report with the police with regard to the accident. In his cross-examination, he further deposed that he did not visit the claimant in the hospital on the day of the accident but rather met the claimant in the hospital on the next date. As per this witness, police always remained present in Kohli Sweet Mart, Tripri, Patiala but the said witness did not bother to intimate the police regarding the accident and as such the statement of AW2 fails to inspire evidence. Thus, claimant had failed to establish that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant. The impugned order does FAO No.238 of 1993 -5- not call for any interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) April 04, 2008 Judge arya