IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.1021/2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:20.2.2009 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .........Appellant. Versus Ved Parkash and others. .........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Gopal Mittal,Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Co. JASWANT SINGH,J Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal against the award dated 2.1.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short Tribunal), whereby the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by respondent no.1-injured claimant,namely Ved Parkash, was partly allowed and he was awarded a sum of Rs.2,28,067/- alongwith interest @ 7½% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, towards compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 31.7.2006, involving the tractor Swaraj 855, bearing registration no. HR-05-S- 1391 (for short the offending vehicle). Appellant, being the insurer of the offending vehicle and respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle were jointly and severally held liable to pay the aforesaid compensation. Alongwith the appeal application bearing C.M.No.4453-CII of FAO No.1021/2009 (O&M) -2- 2009 has been filed with a prayer to stay the execution of the impugned award dated 2.1.2009. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 31.7.2006, respondent no.1 Ved Parkash alongwith his cousin Sant Kumar was going to meet his relative Balwant, residing at Village Dera Bansa, Tehsil and District Karnal, on a motorcycle bearing registration no. HR-05-G-5993 being driven by Sant Kumar. On reaching the dera of said Balwant Singh they came to know that he had gone to Village Katlaheri. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 alongwith Sant Kumar proceeded to Village Katlaheri, on the said motorcycle. When they reached about one furlong from Pully-Drain Bansa to Katlaheri Road, said Balwant Singh met them there. Thereupon, Sant Kumar stopped the motorcycle near Balwant Singh on the katcha portion of the road on its left side and started talking with Balwant Singh. In the meantime, the offending vehicle, being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from Katlaheri side and after hitting the trio directly stopped at a little distance. Sant Kumar, cousin of the appellant on reaching near the offending vehicle recognised the driver of the offending vehicle as Harpreet Singh @ Preet son of Tejinder Singh @ Gogi. Sant Kumar requested said Harpreet Singh to take the injured claimant to the hospital but the latter refused and ran away from the spot. The appellant, who suffered serious and multiple injuries, lost two fingers of his right hand, fractured another finger and also suffered fracture on the upper side of right leg, was shifted to Government Hospital,Karnal FAO No.1021/2009 (O&M) -3- where he remained admitted for three days and thereafter remained admitted for another seven days in Haryana Nursing Home,Karnal. A sum of Rs. One lac was alleged to have been spent on his treatment. Based upon these facts the impugned order came to be passed. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that a false case has been foisted upon the insured and insurer, as the FIR dated 1.8.2006, registered on the statement of PW6 Sant Kumar with regard to the present accident has been closed as untraced by the police. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and have perused the impugned award carefully. It has come on record that apart from respondent no.1-Ved Parkash,claimant-PW4 two more eye witnesses of the accident namely PW5 Balwant Singh and PW6 Sant Kumar have tendered their evidence. They have testified that the motorcycle was stopped by PW6 Sant Kumar on the left katcha portion of the road and three of them i.e. driver (of the motorcycle) Sant Kumar, Balwant Singh and Ved Parkash were having conversation when the offending vehicle (Make Swaraj 855, colour Red with yellow coloured trolley) came from the side of Village Katlaheri and struck against the motorcycle and all three of them got injured. According to them the driver was recognised as Harpreet Singh @ Preet son of Tejinder Singh @ Gogi, resident of Village Dera Bansa i.e. co-villager of Balwant Singh. It has also come FAO No.1021/2009 (O&M) -4- on the record that PW6 Sant Kumar requested said Harpreet Singh @ Preet to take them to hospital but he ran away from the spot alongwith the tractor and trolley. FIR dated 1.8.2006, registered at the instance of eye witness Sant Kumar-PW6, is clearly indicative of the fact that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident which was driven by Harpreet Singh @ Gogi. The evidence of respondent-injured claimant Ved Parkash is perfectly in tune with the occurrence as stated above. Merely because the police has not proceeded with the criminal proceedings does not conclude that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. The learned Tribunal, in para 20 of the impugned award, has deftly dealt with this aspect of the matter, the relevant extract of which is reproduced as under:- “.....The statement of the injured claimant coupled with the statements of two eye-witnesses and the recital made in the FIR are indicative of the fact that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and it was being driven by respondent no.1 at the time of accident. Moreover, the respondent no.1 is the resident of the same village, to which, PW5 Balwant Singh belongs and it cannot be believed that PW5 Balwant Singh could not identify the inhabitant of his own village. Moreover, the respondent no.1 himself has not dared to come present in the witness box to deny his involvement in the accident. Learned counsel for the FAO No.1021/2009 (O&M) -5- insurance company has not been able to convince the court that there was any collusion between the injured claimant and the respondent no.1 and 2....” Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has not been able to point out anything which may persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion. No other point has been urged. For the reasons stated above, the present appeal alongwith application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. 20.2.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge