IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.2937 of 2008 Date of Decision:22.4.2009. Manphool Singh ..........Appellant Versus Varinder Singh and another ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. JS Cooner,Advocate for the appellant-claimant. Mr.V.Ramswaroop,Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. Mr.DR Bansal,Advocate for respondent no.3. JASWANT SINGH,J Appellant-claimant, has filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 1.4.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court) Ambala (for short the Tribunal) dismissing his claim petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short the Act) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 15.7.2003, involving scooter bearing no. HP-13-1183 (for short the ill fated scooter), being driven by appellant and a DTC bus bearing registration no.DL-1PA-2804 (for short the offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 Varinder Singh. It was alleged in the claim petition that on 15.7.2003 the claimant was going on the ill fated scooter and when he reached near Falcon Hotel, the offending vehicle came from the opposite side, being driven by respondent no.1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the ill fated FAO No.2937 of 2008 2 scooter as a result of which the appellant fell down on the road and sustained injuries including head injury, fracture of the right knee and left hand. It was alleged that after the accident the claimant-appellant fell unconscious taking advantage of which respondent no.1 got lodged FIR against the claimant. It was further alleged that after the accident the claimant was firstly shifted to Civil Hospital, Solan from where he was referred to Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Shimla where he was operated upon for his fractures and head injury during his admission there from 15.7.2003 to 1.8.2003 and that a sum of Rs.2.5 lac was incurred on his treatment. With these allegations, a compensation of Rs.10 lacs was sought. Respondents contested the claim petition. Issues were framed. Parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned Tribunal, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, on the basis of material available on record dismissed the claim petition vide impugned award. Hence the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and perused the impugned award. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant that the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition has wrongly been influenced by registration of FIR against the claimant. It has further been contended that the fact that claimant, at the time of accident was not authorised to drive scooter (as he did not possess any driving licence on the date of accident) is not itself sufficient to hold that the appellant- claimant was negligent. I do not find any merit in these contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the accident took in the FAO No.2937 of 2008 3 middle of the road. The claimant was not holding any driving licence. The place of accident, a hilly terrain, had lot of curves. The claimant was convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,Kandaghat, under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Though the claimant alleges that taking undue advantage of his unconsciousness respondent no.1 got a false FIR lodged against him, but it is not the case of the claimant that after his discharge from hospital he ever reported the matter to the police about his false implication or filed any criminal complaint against respondent no.1. Perusal of the impugned award also reveals that realising his failure to succeed in the claim petition under Section 166 of Act, he also sought indulgence of the Tribunal to convert the original claim petition into one under Section 163-A of the Act, which prayer, was not acceded to by the learned Tribunal. From the facts and circumstances noticed above, I am of the considered opinion that the accident had not taken place due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle and rather the claimant was unauthorisedly driving a scooter on a hilly terrain without any licence, thus risking his as well as lives of other motorists. He has rightly been held to be not entitled to any compensation. No fault can be found with the impugned award. No other point has been raised. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed. 22.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge