IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1098 of 2010 (O&M) in MVA petition No. 38 RBT of 2008 Date of decision: 08.12.2011 Rakesh Kumar ..Appellant Versus Charan Singh and Others ..Respondents AND FAO No. 1100 of 2010 (O&M)in MVA No.37 RBT of 2008 Date of decision: 08.12.2011 Laxman ..Appellant Versus Charan Singh and Others ..Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN. Present: Mr. Varun Baanith, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the Insurance Company. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(ORAL) This judgment will dispose of two FAOs No. 1098, 1100 of 2010 (O&M) filed by the appellants-claimants against the impugned order dated 27.7.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad. The brief facts as stated in the claim petitions are that on 6.3.2006, the claimant/appellant Laxman and his brother-in-law were going from Palwal to Aherwan road on a motorcycle which was being driven by Laxman on his correct left side at a slow speed. When they reached near village Raipur, a three wheeler bearing registration No. HR38H/5360 came FAO No. 1098 of 2010 (O&M) & -2- FAO No. 1100 of 2010 (O&M) from Hathin side driven by Charan Singh, driving rashly , negligently and hit motorcycle due to which Laxman, the driver and pillion Rakesh fell down on the road and received injuries. Both the injured were removed to the General Hospital, Palwal by another three wheeler driven by Raj Kumar. From General Hospital, Palwal Laxman, the injured was referred to Safdarjang Hospital whereas, Rakesh Kumar was admitted in Dua Nursing Home, Palwal. An FIR No. 184, dated 27.3.2006 under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC was registered against Charan Singh, driver. The offending three wheeler No. HR 38H/5360 is owned by Mohan Singh . The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether the petitioners had suffered injury in a vehicle accident that took place on account of rash and negligent driving of three wheeler No. HR-38H-5360 by respondent No. 1 Charan Singh? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation if so to what to what amount and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident? OPR-3 4. Relief. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad dismissed the petitions with costs, Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad while deciding issue No. 1 reached the conclusion that it has not been proved that accident was caused by Charan Singh, driver while driving three wheeler FAO No. 1098 of 2010 (O&M) & -3- FAO No. 1100 of 2010 (O&M) HR 38H/5360 in a rash and negligent manner. In view of the findings of issue No. 1 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad came to the conclusion that none of the petitioenrs is entitled to any compensation and dismissed both the claim petitions. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petitions Rakesh Kumar injured filed FAO No. 1098 of 2010 while Laxman injured filed FAO No. 1100 of 2010 . There is a delay of 29 days in filing the appeals which is condoned. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in-advertantly an FIR exhibit P-54 relating to another accident was exhibited. He further argued that Laxman claimant-appellant has suffered more than 63% permanent disability. He argued that in fact the driver is facing trial and has been charge-sheeted by the Criminal Court. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the non- exhibiting of the correct FIR has caused mis-carriage of justice. It is negligence of the counsel, who did not conduct the case properly and was not vigilant enough to see that proper documents are being produced and proved in Court. He submits that this case may be remanded back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad for a fresh decision on merits, allowing the parties to lead evidence. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has argued that the award of the learned Tribunal is well reasoned. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance. From the file it is clear that the accident occurred on 6.3.2006, FAO No. 1098 of 2010 (O&M) & -4- FAO No. 1100 of 2010 (O&M) whereas the FIR was lodged on 27.3.2006. Thus, there is delay of 28 days in lodging the FIR. Mere delay in filing the FIR is not a ground to dismiss the claim petition especially when no animoisty is alleged against the driver or the owner of the three wheeler. Delay can be one of the grounds for acquittal in a criminal case but it is not a ground to dismiss the claim petition when the accident is proved independently by adducing cogent evidence. It was a blind FIR. The FIR exhibit P-54 place on record pertains to some other vehicle and from other Police Station. It is stated that FIR was registered on the statement of Laxman, the claimant on 27.3.2006 at Police Post Palwal. The counsel by mistake brought on record the FIR which does not pertain to the accident in question. From the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that it is a fit case for remand where the parties should be granted another opportunity to lead evidence to prove their respective pleas. Thus, the impugned award dated 27.7.2009 is set aside. FAO Nos. 1098 and 1100 of 2010 are allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, for deciding afresh on merits. Parties , through their counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 21.02.2012, at 10.00 AM. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) December 08, 2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)