FAO No. 1135 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1135 of 2000 Date of decision: May 04, 2011 Sardul Singh Appellant Versus Amrik Singh and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present : Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 None for respondents No. 1 and 3 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No K. KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for injuries alleged to have been suffered in a motor accident. The contention was that on 18.01.1993, the claimant was proceeding from Amritsar to Gumtala on his scooter and when he reached near the petrol station, car belonging to second respondent driven by the first respondent dashed against him and he sustained grievous injuries. He had become unconscious and had been taken to the hospital. He would say that nearly 1 ¾ /2 years later, he knew that the Maruti car, which had struck him, was bearing registration No. PIA-422. This fact was supposed to have been informed by one FAO No. 1135 of 2000 2 Manjit Singh Randhawa and Nirmal Kumar. These two persons were said to have been present at the time of the accident and he had not given the complaint immediately because he was taking treatment in the hospital with serious injuries and he had not known the identity of the vehicle till nearly 1 ¾ years later. 2. It must be immediately noticed that at no point of time a case was registered with the police. There was no medical record brought before the Court to show that injuries were sustained in road side accident. When the claimant stated that he knew about the involvement of the vehicle itself only when Amrik Singh and Nirmal Kumar had informed him, it will become necessary to examine whether the evidence of these two persons evoke confidence to find that there is enough corroboration of the statement given by the claimant. 3. To turn to the evidence of AW-2 – Nirmal Kumar and Manjit Singh Randhawa– AW-6 to find whether they obtained proper corroboration, AW-2 would state that he saw the accident close to the shop of Manjit Singh. The accident took place near petrol pump and he was witness to a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. PIA– 422 dashing against the scooter which the claimant was driving. He stated that he and Manjit Singh rushed to the spot but the driver, who was known to Manjit Singh, threatened them with dire consequences if they revealed the factum of accident to any person and left the place immediately. He would say that he did not get the claimant admitted in the hospital due to threats given by the driver Amrik Singh. He admitted in the cross examination that he had never reported the matter to the police till the time he was examined in the FAO No. 1135 of 2000 3 Court. He would also say that he did not know the petitioner - Sardul Singh. He had stated in the cross examination that he informed the factum of accident as having been caused by Amrik Singh to Sardul Singh about 1 ¾ years after the accident took place near the shop of Manjit Singh. It is impossible to believe that they did not think of informing the police and if it was to be accepted that they felt threatened, it is artificial that they could not even give the information to Sardul Singh. After all, he was known at least to one of the two persons - Manjit Singh. AW-5 - Manjit Singh gave evidence to the effect that he was a witness to the accident and gave this information to Sardul Singh when he happened to pass by that side. He remembered scooter registration No. PAA-8949 that Sardul Singh was having but he did not remember the car registration number. He volunteered the information that registration number of the car and the scooter were noted by Nirmal Kumar - AW-2. The diary maintained by Nirmal Kumar was still with him. Nirmal Kumar himself did not state in the evidence that he had noted down the registration number of the car that was involved in the accident. 4. The driver – Amrik Singh had been examined in the case who gave evidence to the effect that the vehicle was never involved in the accident. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that against the versions of AW-1, AW-2 and AW-6, there was only a sole testimony of the driver to deny the accident and there was nothing to corroborate his version. 5. I can not accept this argument, for, denial of accident could only by the person against whom imputation is made. It required no corroboration. On the other hand, the person, who FAO No. 1135 of 2000 4 presents evidence to implicate a particular person as having caused the accident alone, shall give evidence which is trust worthy and acceptable by the Tribunal. I have already extracted important aspects of the evidence given by AW-2 and AW-6 which hardly evoke evidence. I can not also accept the contention that the threat that was held out to two persons was so infectious that even the claimant who came in contact with said eye witnesses did not think of informing the police that there had been a motor accident involving the Maruti Car. The hospital records immediately after the claimant's admission would have also helped to secure the truth, if only it had been brought before the Tribunal to show that he had confided with the doctor that he was hit by Maruti Car. Even the hospital records were not produced before the Court. 6. On over all consideration, I do not find that the Tribunal committed any error in dismissing the petition. I affirm the same and dismiss the appeal. (K. KANNAN) 04.05.2011 JUDGE reena