In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 1235 of 2008 Date of decision: August 10, 2009 Mukesh Kumar .. Appellant Vs. Vinod and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ajit Attri, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J Aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') dismissing the claim petition, Mukesh Kumar claimant-appellant (herein referred as 'the claimant'), has preferred the appeal. While summarising, the facts are that on 7.11.2003, the claimant along with Rajesh was going to village Munak on a scooter bearing registration No.DL-2SD-4848 and when they reached near the bus stand of Singhpura, Rajesh stopped his scooter for airing the tyres and the claimant stood by the road side. In the meantime, the respondent No.1 while driving the tractor rashly and negligently came and struck against the claimant. As a consequence of which, claimant fell down and received multiple injuries on the vital parts of his body. The people gathered at the spot informed that the said tractor was owned by Satta Bairagi resident of village Sithana. Case FIR No.272 dated 13.11.2003 was registered under Sections 279/337 IPC. However, during investigation, it came out that the tractor was owned by respondent No. 2 Bharat Singh. The claim petition was contested by the respondents who took various objections and submitted that the vehicle owned by the respondent No.2, was not involved in the accident. It was also averred that the claimant also did not receive injuries on account of the said accident and the tractor was involved just in order to grab money. F.A.O. No. 1235 of 2008 -2- *** Both the parties led evidence and ultimately the claim petition was dismissed. Though, it has come in evidence that many people had gathered at the spot but none of them was examined to prove the negligence of the respondent No.1. Notwithstanding the fact that the Tribunal held the rashness and negligence of the respondent on the basis of the statement of the claimant, yet the Tribunal was justified in holding that since the claimant has failed to establish by leading cogent evidence on the record that he had spent Rs.30,000/- on his treatment, therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation. No doctor who treated the claimant and charged the amount for treatment has been examined. No medical bills have been proved. As such, to my mind the Tribunal has taken right view while dismissing the claim petition. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. August 10, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge