IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M) Date of Decision:20/2/2009 Rajinder Singh @ Rauki through his father ..........Appellant. Versus Gulab Singh and another. ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Harinder Sharma,Advocate for the appellant-claimant. JASWANT SINGH,J. Appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal challenging the dismissal of his claim petition by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short the Tribunal) vide award dated 28.7.2008 for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident involving Mini Truck bearing registration No. HP-16-3456 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), owned and driven by Gulab Singh-respondent no.1, and insured by respondent no.2-Insurance Company, Since there is a delay of seven days in filing the appeal, an application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, bearing CM No.24100-CII of 2008, has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant- claimant and for the reasons stated in the application, which is accompanied by FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M) -2- an affidavit of Lakhvinder Singh-father of the petitioner, the application is allowed and delay of seven days in filing the appeal is condoned. Facts leading to the filing of claim petition, which led to the passing of the impugned award are that on 22.6.2006 appellant- injured claimant, aged 15 years in order to have an ice cream, left his home and joined his parents at Hamirpur Bus Stand, where they were already waiting for a bus to go to Naraingarh. In the meanwhile the offending vehicle owned and being driven by respondent no.1, Gulab Singh in a rash, negligent manner and at a high speed, came from opposite side. Due to high speed, the driver could not control the offending vehicle and hit appellant-claimant. In the process the claimant was dragged by the offending vehicle to some distance. Father of the appellant alongwith the crowd that gathered there retrieved the injured appellant from beneath the offending vehicle in an unconscious state. He was rushed to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh, from where, on account of his precarious medical condition, he was referred to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh (PGI) where he remained admitted for three FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M) -3- days i.e. from 22.6.2006 to 24.6.2006. Thereafter the appellant- injured claimant was got admitted to Sant Ram Hospital, Ambala City on 24.6.2006, where he remained admitted till 22.8.2006. The claim petition was filed on 23.12.2006 stating therein that appellant had not fully recovered by that time and was still under treatment, which had already cost him approximately Rs.2 lacs. Three months after the accident in question an FIR was got registered with the police against the offending vehicle in which respondent no.1 was stated to have been facing trial under Sections 279,337 and 338 IPC. Appellant filed claim petition no.80 of 2006, in which the impugned award dated 28.7.2008 came to be passed, dismissing his claim. Hence the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-injured claimant. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that there was ample evidence on record to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question but the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the same and dismissed his FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M) -4- claim petition. It is further contended that the appellant is still in coma, but the learned Tribunal dismissed his claim petition simply on the ground that there was a delay of three months in lodging the FIR. I have carefully gone through the impugned award. It may be mentioned here that respondent no.1-driver- cum-owner of the offending vehicle though contested the claim petition but neither examined himself nor led any documentary evidence nor did he examine any witness in support of his case. On the other hand, respondent no.2-Insurance Company tendered insurance policy as Ex.R-1 and closed its evidence. It was contended on behalf of respondent no.2-Insurance Company that n o accident, as alleged, took place with the offending vehicle and the claim petition had been falsely instituted in collusion with respondent no.1-driver-cum-owner. The reasons given by the learned Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition are well founded and no fault can be found with the same. As per claimant's version the accident had taken place in FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M) -5- the presence of his parents. At that time a crowd had also gathered there. However, none of the witness from general public was examined. Though, it was averred in the claim petition that immediately after the accident the injured appellant was rushed firstly to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh and thereafter to PGI, Chandigarh, in support of which Dr. R.C.Jindal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,Ambala City and Dr. S.R. Arora were examined as PW2 and PW3. Except producing OPD Card/Ticket of PGI, Sant Hospital and Sarwal Hospital as mark D,E and F respectively and medical bills, no other documentary evidence was proved by these witnesses which may indicate that it was a road side accident. It is common knowledge, as noticed by the Tribunal, that after an injured is brought to “Emergency” in a State run Civil Hospital or Medical Institute of PGI's repute, the first question that Doctors, while taking history, puts to the attendant(s) is the manner in which injuries were suffered by the victim. In case, injured is stated to have received injuries in a road side accident, every Emergency Medical Officer, sends information to police about FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M) -6- arrival of Medico Legal Case. In this case the injured was brought to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh/PGI by none else than the father of the appellant-injured claimant. Nothing has come on record as to what stopped the father of the appellant from telling the truth vis a vis the accident in question. Lakhvinder Singh,PW1, father of the appellant tried to fill up this lacuna by stating that the police was informed about the accident but his statement was not recorded. This story has rightly been rejected by the learned Tribunal by observing that if the lower police staff did not record his statement, he could have reported the matter to the higher authorities. Another factor which corroborates the stand of the respondent no.2-Insurance Company, about the fallacy of the claim petition, is that the FIR in the instant case was lodged 3 months after the occurrence of the accident in question. To explain the delay in lodging the FIR, Lakhvinder Singh,PW-1 stated that he was busy in connection with treatment of his injured son. This explanation was also rightly not accepted by the Tribunal by holding that other relatives/friends could have brought the incident to the FAO NO.4533/2008(O&M) -7- notice of the police to get a case registered. The authority Manoj v. Samunder Singh and others, 2005 ACJ, 520 (Madhya Pradesh) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that even delay of one year is not fatal to the appellant's case, is not applicable to the instant case. In the reported though the FIR was lodged after one year but the driver had admitted the involvement of offending vehicle being driven by him in the accident. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and evidence produced by the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition and no fault can be found with the same. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 20.2.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge