FAO No.2749 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2749 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.8.2009 Shri Chand son of Shri Kukan Chand ......Appellant(s) Versus Lalit Kumar son of Lal Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sailender Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is claimant's appeal challenging the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari whereby claim of the petitioner has been denied on the ground that he has failed to prove that the accident resulting in injuries to him was an outcome of rash and negligent driving of bus No.HR-47-8472 by Lalit Kumar-respondent No.1. The case of the appellant is that on 12.2.2006, he was traveling in bus No.RJ-02P-1230 and it was driven at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. The aforesaid bus was moving towards Rewari. At about 10.30 P.M when the bus was near turning to village Rasgan in the area of village Jonawas, a bus No.HR-47-8472 driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the back side and in the process of overtaking bus No.RJ-02P-1230, the aforesaid bus took an abrupt turn towards its left side on account of which bus No.RJ-02P-1230 turned turtle. The occupants of the bus including the appellant suffered injuries. The accident was reported to the Police Station Dharuhera vide FIR No.36 dated 12.2.2006. The petitioner was 62 years of age at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The petitioner was taken FAO No.2749 of 2008 2 to General Hospital, Rewari after accident. Thereafter, he was taken to Birendra Hospital, Garhi Bolni Road, Rewari where he was treated. The petitioner suffered a lot of pain and agony and spent Rs.80,000/- on his treatment. The petitioner claimed that he remained in bed for six months and thus, he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents. The accident as pleaded by the appellant was denied. It was further submitted that the bus was insured with respondent No.3. The Insurance Company filed separate reply contesting the claim of the appellant. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the appellant had failed to prove that the appellant suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.HR-47-8472 by respondent No.1 and dismissed the claim application. Challenging the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition without appreciating the facts of the present case and has brushed aside the evidence adduced by the appellant. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the admitted facts pertaining to the occurrence of accident and involvement of vehicles and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be modified so as to award the compensation to the appellant as claimed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. The onus to prove the fact that the appellant suffered injuries due to accident in question was upon him. To prove this issue, the appellant appeared as PW-1 and stated that on 12.2.2006 he was traveling FAO No.2749 of 2008 3 from Masani to Rewari in a bus of Bhiwari and near turning to Rasgan, a bus had hit their bus from the back side on account of which the bus in which he was travelling turned turtle leading to injuries to various persons including the petitioner. There is no other evidence led by the appellant to prove the accident in question by the offending vehicle. Apart from the statement of the appellant as discussed above, FIR Ex.P3 proved by Constable Om Parkash Kumar PW-3, is of no help to the appellant as the aforesaid FIR was lodged by some Gyarsi Ram son of Banshi Ram who has not been examined as a witness in this case. Even as per the aforesaid FIR, the bus involved in the accident was driven by Mukesh Kumar son of Ram Niwas whereby it has come in evidence of PW-3 that one Lalit Kumar has been challaned as driver of the bus for causing the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any material evidence on record which has been ignored by the Tribunal in support of his case. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, no fault can be found with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence. No merit. Dismissed. August 20, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE FAO No.2749 of 2008 4