IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO 2811/2006 Date of Decision: 18.5.2009. Sanjay Kumar ..........Appellant Versus Narender Singh and another ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Pankaj Mehta,Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH,J This order will dispose of FAO bearing Nos.2811 and 2812 of 2006, as both these appeals are directed against the award dated 18.2.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing the claim petitions of appellants. Briefly noticed the facts, which are common in both the appeals, are that on 21.1.2002 appellants Narender Singh and his son Sanjay Kumar were going from Jhajjar to Gujarat in truck bearing registration no.HR-46- 6978, (hereinafter referred to as the offending truck) owned and driven by Narender Singh. It is alleged that when they reached in between Santa Puri and Varahi (Gujarat) a truck with its full lights on came from the opposite side. Due to glare of the lights of the truck coming from the opposite side Narender Singh did not notice another stationary truck parked on the side of the road as a result of which his truck rammed into that stationary truck. It FAO 2811/2006 2 was alleged that due to the said accident the offending truck got damaged beyond repairs and was rendered as a piece of scrap. In the said accident Sanjay Kumar, son of Narender Singh, allegedly sustained injuries. Since no compensation was granted either to Narender Singh on account of damages caused to his offending truck and to Sanjay Kumar, who alleged himself to be Cleaner of the offending truck, on account of injuries suffered by him, both claimants-appellants filed separate claim petitions under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.6 lacs and Rs.5 lacs respectively. Both these claim petitions were consolidated. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and both sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas. After perusing the evidence available on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the appellants-claimants failed to produce genuine, cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to succeed in their claim petition. Accordingly, both the claim petitions were dismissed. Hence the present appeals. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the findings of the learned Tribunal are patently perverse and based on mis-reading of evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book carefully. A perusal of the impugned award shows that claim of appellant Narender Singh seeking damages to the tune of Rs.6 lacs was rejected on the ground that his status was that of insured and not a “third party” i.e. other than FAO 2811/2006 3 insured and insurer. Despite repeated queries by this Court, it was not the case of the learned counsel for the claimant-Narender Kumar that the insurance policy of the offending truck was a comprehensive one so as to entitle him to compensation on account of damages suffered in the alleged accident. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned award in respect of dismissal of claim petition filed by Narender Singh. As regards appellant Sanjay, alleged Cleaner of the offending truck, while appearing as PW 3 he reiterated the averments contained in the claim petition. It was further stated by him that immediately after the accident he was taken to Patan Hospital where he remained admitted for two days and thereafter he was shifted to Ahuja Nursing Home, Delhi in a hired taxi. In support of his claim that he suffered permanent disability he also examined PW5 Dr.DS Nandal,SMO, General Hospital,Jhajjar. As per testimony of Dr.DS Nandal, claimant Sanjay had post traumatic compression of D12 vertebrae and as such his percentage of disablement was given as 20%. However, in cross examination it was stated by Dr. Nandal that he had not personally treated the patient. He also could not state as to when the disablement had taken place and neither it was mentioned in the disability certificate that it was due to injuries suffered in a road side accident. As per stand of Sanjay claimant, immediately after the accident he was taken to Patan Hospital, where he remained admitted for two days. However, no document in regard to his admission at Patan Hospital was produced which could connect his having suffered injuries in the alleged accident. Instead Sanjay, claimant produced a discharge slip issued by Ahuja FAO 2811/2006 4 Nursing Home, New Delhi. The learned Tribunal, on careful scrutiny of the said discharge slip noticed that it was nowhere mentioned that the injured had sustained injuries in a road side accident. Admittedly, regarding the alleged accident the appellants-claimants have not lodged any DDR or FIR with the police. Thus, from the evidence led by the appellants in support of their claim petitions it could not be said that claimant-appellant Sanjay suffered injuries in the alleged accident. No other point has been raised. Accordingly,finding no merit in these appeals the same are hereby dismissed. 18.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge