FAO No.446 of 2006(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.446 of 2006 (O&M) Decided on : September 01, 2009 Labh Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Vipan Kumar Yadav and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.8.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, dismissing the claim petition of Labh Singh – claimant/appellant (herein referred as the claimant). Factual background of the case is that on 2.7.2003, the claimant along with his brother Ramesh Kumar was coming from Shahbad (Markanda) side to Ambala side on separate bicycles. At about 8.30 p.m., when they reached near Dhillon Petrol Pump in the area of village Shahpur, respondent No.2 Ranjit Singh while driving truck No.HR-55-1895 rashly and negligently hit the bicycle of the claimant. Resultantly, he suffered FAO No.446 of 2006(O&M) [ 2 ] injuries. He was taken to Parbhakar Hospital, Ambala, from where after giving first-aid, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted from 2.7.2003 to 19.7.2003. He suffered injuries on back bone, left leg and left arm and had to spend about Rs.90,000/- on his treatment, but could not fully recover. He also suffered loss to his income due to his non-workable condition. Upon notice, respondents No.1 and 2 were served, but proceeded against exparte. Respondent No.3 - National Insurance Company contested the claim petition denying if the claimant suffered injuries on account of the alleged accident with the truck, driven by respondent No.2 and owned by respondent No.1. Eventually, it prayed for dismissal of the petition. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HR-55-1895 by respondent No.1- A Ranjit Singh?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, what compensation the claimant is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.2 is not liable for payment of compensation, as alleged in the preliminary objections of its written statement? OPR-2” The only argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant is that though the negligence of respondent No.2 at the time of the FAO No.446 of 2006(O&M) [ 3 ] commission of the offence could not be established, yet it is a hit and run case, where the identity of the vehicle has been established and the Tribunal did not take account of the entire evidence. It is contended that Labh Singh – claimant, while appearing as PW3 has disclosed that truck bearing Reg.No.HR-55-1895 came from behind and hit his bicycle, due to which he fell down and suffered injuries. He further deposed that he was taken to Parbhakar Hospital, Ambala Cantt from where, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. During cross- examination, he stated that his statement was recorded by the police after two days. So far as the identity of the vehicle causing the accident is concerned, during cross-examination as well, the claimant disclosed that he himself had seen the number of the truck at the time of accident. Counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company has not advanced any such feasible argument, which could be a reasonable reply to the aforesaid contention. Having considered the submissions, it appears that the Tribunal fell in error while holding that the accident had been caused by some unknown vehicle and the claimant could not establish the involvement of truck No.HR-55-1895 in the accident simply for the reason that brother of the claimant, namely Ramesh Kumar (PW4), alleged eye witness of the occurrence, gave some contradictory version regarding his presence at the spot. It is worthwhile to mention that the injured – claimant (PW3) is the best witness, who could tell the tale of the fateful accident and the authenticity of his statement could not be shattered despite lengthy cross- examination. Though, the evidence on record does not establish the FAO No.446 of 2006(O&M) [ 4 ] presence of respondent No.2 on the wheel of the truck, yet the identity of the truck is proved beyond doubt. The appeal is disposed of, while determining this case to be a `hit and run case', and the claimant is held entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is quantified at Rs.25,000/- on account of `no fault liability', to be paid by respondent – Insurance Company. No order as to costs. September 01, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE