FAO No.615 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.615 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: February 14, 2011 CHATURBHUJ DIXIT ...APPELLANT VERSUS VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. JASWANT JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 4. MR. KUNAL GARG, AAG, HARYANA FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for injuries alleged to have been suffered by the appellant. The accident is said to have taken place on 2.9.1987, when he was said to be travelling in a three-wheeler and a Gypsy jeep in a convoy of vehicles, following the Chief Minister of the State of Haryana, dashed against the three-wheeler and the latter toppled. On account of the said accident the claimant was reported to have been injured and he had been taken to Mahendergarh hospital for immediate treatment for a fracture of knee. He had given the evidence to the effect that he had subsequently taken treatment at AIIMS, Delhi. FAO No.615 of 1992 -2- 2. The contention was that the Doctor at hospital refused to make a MLR on account of the fact that he was a Doctor for the Chief Minister and he had entered prevailed on the person who was at the hospital not to enter a MLR. He was said to have gone to Police Station to lodge a report, and the police also refused to lodge the FIR. In evidence before the Tribunal, he gave his own version of the accident and yet another person claimed that he knew that there was an accident on 2.9.1987 involving one of the vehicles that went in a convoy with the Chief Minister. 3. The driver of the vehicle examined himself as RW-1 and denied that on that particular day there had been any accident. He was cross- examined about the fact that there is a log-book for the vehicle and he had not produced the same in Court. Yet another person said to be travelling alongwith the driver was also examined as RW-2, who similarly denied the fact of accident. 4. The Tribunal found, in the absence of any documentary evidence relating to the entry in MLR or the FIR, that the petitioner had even failed to prove the injuries as resulting from a motor accident or the involvement of the vehicle. The Tribunal drew an adverse inference for not securing the evidence of the driver or owner of the vehicle in which he was said to be travelling. The Tribunal further reasoned that even if FIR had not been registered, he would have definitely made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police complaining about the fact that a complaint was omitted to be registered inspite of a specific complaint given by him. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant points out that a newspaper report brought about the same time clearly gave evidence of all the details of the accident and the involvement of a vehicle in the convoy of FAO No.615 of 1992 -3- the Chief Minister. Learned counsel would also contend that he had been treated at AIIMS, Delhi and that itself would show that he had been injured in the motor accident. If a case must be tested about the involvement of a vehicle, it is normally done through an immediate entry in some official records. Such as an entry in the hospital or at the police station is lacking in this case. Perhaps there was a justification for the claimant to contend that since the vehicle involved was part of the Chief Minister's convoy, the officials would not register the complaint. This situation could have been easily remedied if the claimant had examined the driver of the vehicle in which was said to be travelling. Even the newspaper report was said to have been carried immediately were on the next date after the Chief Minister's convoy was alleged to have caused the accident, it should have lent credibility to the version. Learned counsel's reliance on the newspaper report which was brought 6 weeks after the accident is extremely suspicious. On his own showing the claimant was an aspiring politician and he had stated that he had an ace photographer having his photographs with the former Prime Ministers of the country. For such a person to plead ignorance about a minimal procedure that could have been followed in case of refusal to register a compliant by taking up the complaint with the Superintendent of Police or higher officials seems too artificial to believe. It is very clear that the claimant had some injuries, but if it cannot be related to a motor accident and more particularly, by bringing appropriate evidence to connect the respondents' vehicle, then I am afraid it is not possible to root for a cause of action for the claim. If the petition had been dismissed by the Tribunal, it was dismissed for adequate and appropriate reasons. I cannot persuade myself to take a different view from how it has been done by the FAO No.615 of 1992 -4- Tribunal. 6. The appeal is consequently dismissed. February 14, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE