IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.1221/2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:17.3.2009. Kamlesh ..........Appellant Versus Sarjeet and another ......... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Manoj Chahal,Advocate for the appellant-driver-cum-owner. JASWANT SINGH,J CM No.5900-CII/2009. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 85 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.1221/2009. Appellant-driver-cum-owner of Bolero Jeep bearing registration No. HR-34-B-1316 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) has preferred this appeal against the award dated 10.9.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby the claim petition, filed by respondent no.1 herein, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) seeking compensation on account of permanent disability (amputation of left hand from elbow) suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 15.5.2006 was allowed and he was held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,71,000/- (under various heads). FAO No.1221/2009 (O&M) -2- It is the contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the offending vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident, wherein the respondent is claimed to have received injuries resulting in permanent disability and a totally false case was got registered in collusion with the police. It is next contended by the learned counsel that the learned Tribunal has erred in granting recovery rights to the insurance company i.e. respondent no.2 since the offending vehicle was never used as a taxi nor any rent was fixed/taken from the claimant as alleged by him in the claim petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award, I am of the considered opinion, that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is perfectly in consonance with the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it and no fault can be found with the same. As per averments made in the claim petition on 15.5.2006, claimant-Sarjeet was travelling in the offending vehicle owned and driven by appellant-Kamlesh son of Kehra Ram at a very high speed, rashly and negligently and when they reached near Chirawa bye pass the offending vehicle turned turtle and claimant received multiple injuries. In the written statement filed by appellant -driver-cum-owner, his stand was same as has been raised in the first contention noticed above. Respondent no.2- i.e. insurer of the offending vehicle in their written statement, described the claimant as unauthorised and gratuitous passenger and not covered by insurance policy. FAO No.1221/2009 (O&M) -3- On the pleadings of the parties various issues were framed. Parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas. Learned Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, allowed the claim petition as noticed above. Claimant Sarjeet, aged 30 years, while appearing as PW1 reiterated his version given in the claim petition. He also deposed about the lodging of FIR Ex.P0 by him with the police. Appellant remained contented with his written statement and did not step in the witness box to controvert the specific stand taken by the claimant that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the appellant. This approach coupled with the factum of registration of FIR rightly led the learned Tribunal to draw an inference against the appellant that due to rash and negligent driving the claimant received multiple injuries in the motor vehicular accident in question, resulting in permanent disability of the appellant i.e. amputation of his left hand (from elbow). As against this finding of the learned Tribunal, counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out anything worth consideration which may persuade this Court to record a contrary finding. Regarding the grant of recovery rights to the Insurer of the offending vehicle, I also do not find any fault with the same. The claimant in his cross examination had admitted that at the time of alighting from the offending vehicle the fare was to be paid to appellant, necessarily implying thereby that he was travelling against payment. It is another factor that the FAO No.1221/2009 (O&M) -4- stage of payment of fare did not arise because prior to that accident in question took place and the payment of fare was not realized. Since appellant did not appear at all, no rebutting evidence from his side could be adduced. On the basis of unrebutted evidence noticed above, learned Tribunal rightly held that the appellant was ferrying the claimant against payment which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.R-03. In view of the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal for granting recovery rights to the Insurer of the offending vehicle, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned award on this count also. No other point has been raised. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 17.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge