FAO No.406 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.406 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.9.2008 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ......Appellant Versus Baggo Devi and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is insurer’s appeal challenging the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar whereby the claim petition filed by respondent No.1 has been accepted and the appellant has been held liable jointly and severally with respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to pay the compensation of Rs.4,35,000/- . The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that no liability can be fastened upon the appellant as the offending vehicle CHA-3836 was not involved in the accident . In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on 20.9.2000, Bhaggo Devi-claimant was accompanying her deceased husband-Raj Kumar, as a pillion rider on his scooter when it met with an accident. Said Baggo Devi is author of the FIR registered in this regard, wherein she had given the number of the offending vehicle as DLIC-9513, which has been subsequently changed to CHA-3836 in collusion with the police officials, and thus, it is proved that vehicle CHA- 3836 was not involved in the accident and the impugned award against the FAO No.406 of 2009 (O&M) 2 appellant be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the appeal. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal “1. Whether Raj Kumar has died in the accident caused by respondent No.1 while driving vehicle No.CHA-3836 in rash and negligent manner on 20.9.2000? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. OPR 4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? 5. Whether the claim petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPR 6. Relief.” No other issue was claimed by the appellant-Company. The observations of the Tribunal on the point in issue are as under:- “The accident and the death of Raj Kumar son of Atma Ram is admitted. The main dispute between the parties is regarding the identity of the vehicle. It is argued by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that some other vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1C-9513 was involved in the accident. Even in the FIR the number of the vehicle has been mentioned as DL-1C-9513. The FAO No.406 of 2009 (O&M) 3 vehicle No.CHA-3836 has been falsely planted in the present case just to secure the illegal compensation from respondent No.3. I have considered this contention of learned counsel for the respondent and do not find myself agree with it. Admittedly, in the FIR, the vehicle No.DL-1C-9513 finds mention. It has been mentioned in the FIR that the accident took place with the vehicle No.DL-1C-9513 which was being driven by Rajinder Singh, respondent No.1. But, at the same time, the claimant has placed on record various documents i.e. Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. All these documents show that during investigation supplementary statements of the claimant and the other eye witnesses were recorded, who have categorically stated that they came to know about the correct number of the vehicle later on which is CHA-3836 and not DL- 1C-9513. However, the mode and design of the vehicle is the same. They have stated earlier in their supplementary statement also that the accident was caused with the matador. Thus giving of wrong registration number of the offending vehicle is no ground to hold that the accident was not caused by the said vehicle. The claim of the claimant cannot be rejected on this ground alone. There is nothing unnatural if the registration number of the offending vehicle and name of the driver transpires in the course of later investigation. It is a well settled law that FIR is only aimed at intimating an occurrence to the police. It cannot and does not FAO No.406 of 2009 (O&M) 4 purport to be a complete encyclopedia of all the attending facts. Thus, in the present claim petition, it may be true that in the FIR, some other registration number of the offending vehicle was given, yet, there is no cogent evidence on the record to the contrary to show that the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CHA-3836 was not involved in the accident or that the same is planted. Reliance has been placed upon Raju and others v. Sukhwinder Singh and others 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 82, wherein the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High court has observed as under:- “Identity of vehicle – If the witnesses were able to identify the model and design of the vehicle and the driver, their testimony cannot be ignored only because they were not able to note down all the correct particulars of the offending vehicle.” The above said authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case also, all the witnesses have deposed that the accident was caused with the matador being driven by the respondent No.1 Rajinder Singh. It is relevant to mention here that the respondent No.1, while appearing in the witness box as RW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he was driving the vehicle No.CHA-3836 at the time of the accident. Thus, the post mortem report coupled with the testimony of the witnesses and various documents proved on the record from Ex.P3 to Ex.P8 goes to show that Raj Kumar has died in the accident caused by the FAO No.406 of 2009 (O&M) 5 respondent No.1, while driving the vehicle No.CHA-3836 in rash and negligent manner on 20.9.2000. Accordingly, this issue stands decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. The onus to prove issue No.1 was upon the claimant– respondent. The Tribunal relied upon various documents placed on record i.e. Exs.P3 to P8 which show that during investigation supplementary statements of the claimant and other eye witnesses were recorded who have categorically stated that they came to know about the correct number of the vehicle later on which is CHA-3836 and not DL-1C 9513 and on the basis of the aforesaid evidence recorded a finding of fact that the accident was caused by the driver of the offending vehicle No.CHA- 3836 in rash and negligent manner on 20.9.2000. It may also be pointed out that the aforesaid evidence led by the claimant-respondent on the aforesaid issue has remained unrebutted. The appellant-Company has not placed on record any evidence to controvert the evidence on record placed by the claimant-respondent in support of its case in spite of taking specific stand with regard to identity of vehicle. Thus, in the absence of any evidence placed on record by the appellant to establish that the accident was not caused by the vehicle CHA- 3836, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. No other point was urged. Dismissed. September 17, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE