IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.487 of 2005 Reserved on:3.8.2009 Date of decision:17th September,2009 Sohan Lal …. Appellant Versus Prem Dass …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.Lalit K.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. H.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the award of the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 24.01.2005 vide which the claim petition filed by the respondent as petitioner, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as against the appellant, was allowed and the respondent was granted compensation to the extent of Rs.1,49,533/-. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimant as petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act alleging that on September 28, 2002, the petitioner was a pillion rider on a scooter No.HP-20-A-9429 being driven by Punit Behl. At about 7.30 P.M., when the scooter reached in Rakker Colony, a Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-02-1453 owned by respondent and driven by respondent himself, struck with the scooter and the petitioner suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the van (appellant herein). The petitioner claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 5.00 laces. The respondent denied the allegations. On conclusion Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 of the trial, the Claims Tribunal allowed the petition and awarded compensation in favour of the claimant as detailed above. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that it had not been proved from the evidence that the respondent was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently. It was also submitted that it was not proved that at the relevant time the respondent was driving the vehicle and as such the findings of the learned Tribunal to the contrary are liable to be reversed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant had supported the impugned award for the reasons given therein. A perusal of the petition filed by the claimant shows that he had specifically mentioned the vehicle number and the fact that it was being driven by the respondent and due to rash and negligent driving on his part, the accident took place. In reply, the respondent denied the allegations and denied that the accident had taken place with the vehicle of the respondent. He took up another plea as was sought to be substantiated from his evidence that the vehicle owned by him was stationary and the scooterist struck with the vehicle in question. In view of the fact that this part of the evidence led by the respondent was beyond the pleadings of the respondent in his reply and the learned Tribunal rightly disbelieved this plea taken in evidence only by the respondent and, as such, no infirmity could be pointed out in regard to the findings recorded therein. In regard to the plea that it not proved that at the relevant time the respondent was driving the vehicle, there is a statement of PW-4 Prem Dass petitioner in which he has clearly deposed that the respondent was driving the vehicle and the vehicle number was also mentioned in his statement. His statement was corroborated by PW-3 Puneet Behl who was driving the Scooter at the relevant time. The 3 statement of both these witnesses were not shattered in cross- examination to hold that they cannot be relied upon. The petitioner had also led evidence to prove that he remained under treatment and the medical evidence in the form of PW-2 Dr.N.S.Dogra and PW-6 Dr.Poojan Jaswal is there on record and this part of the evidence, coupled with the fact that a criminal case was also registered against the respondent has been proved from the Copy of FIR Ex.PW-1/A proved in the statement of PW-1. The learned Tribunal below rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was able to prove the allegations made in the claim petition. No infirmity could be pointed out in regard to the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and, as such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant which is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. September 17, 2009 (V.K.Ahuja),J (sds)