IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO NO.849/2009(O&M) Date of Decision:18.3.2009. Bajaj Allianz ..........Appellant Versus SimranjitSingh and others ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. R.K.Aggarwal,Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). CM No.3440-CII/2009. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO NO.849/2009. By way of present appeal, Insurance Company has laid challenge to the award dated 29.9.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby claim petition filed by Simranjit Singh, a minor student aged 8 years, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short the Act) was partly allowed and he was awarded total compensation of Rs.5,22,802/-, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition, for the 70% permanent disability, cost of medical expenses incurred on his treatment, loss of future earning and future costs of nursing/ his care and assistance etc., resulting from a motor vehicular accident that took place on 6.2.2007 at about 8.30 a.m., involving the FAO NO.849/2009(O&M) 2 Maruti Van bearing No. PB-29-F/2414 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) insured by the appellant. So far as the factum of accident, insurance of the vehicle, driver holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, 70% permanent disability suffered by the claimant as a result of the accident, have not been disputed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. It is the sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant and not because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Jaswinder Singh- respondent no.3 herein. Reference has been made to the copy of DDR No.43 dated 7.12.2007 (Exhibit 2). I am of the considered opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel, on the face of findings, based on oral and documentary evidence,recorded in the impugned award, deserves outright rejection. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed various issues. To prove issue no.1, which relates to the cause behind the accident, Jasbir Kaur PW1, mother of the claimant, who was accompanying the latter at the time of accident, deposed regarding the occurrence which took place in her presence. PW2 Charanjit Singh, another eye witnes deposed that at the time of accident he was standing at the spot. The claimant was crossing the road when all of a sudden the offending vehicle being driven by FAO NO.849/2009(O&M) 3 Jaswinder Singh (respondent no.3 herein) in a rash and negligent manner hit the claimant, as a result of which he received multiple and grievous injuries on various parts of his body including the head. The version put forth by these two witnesses was further corroborated by the oral/documentary evidence of PW3 Harbans Singh, Pargat Singh,PW5 (father of the claimant, who lodged the DDR) and Dr.Karun Singla PW6. This evidence led by the claimant has gone unrebutted, as respondents did not lead any oral evidence to prove that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the claimant. Even Jaswinder Singh- driver of the offending vehicle did not step into the witness box in support of the stand taken by him in the written statement. Thus, in the absence of any evidence, the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company cannot be accepted. As regard the DDR No.43 dated 7.12.2007 (Exhibit 2) relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Tribunal after considering the contents thereof has found that since the DDR was got recorded by Pargat Singh (PW5) father of the claimant on the basis of telephonic message received by him from PW2 Charanjit Singh, “the words used in the DDR that the accident took place all of a sudden and naturally does not mean anything” as that was based on hearsay and imaginations, and the manner in which accident was claimed to have taken place stood corroborated by the ocular evidence of PW1 Jasbir Kaur and PW2 Charanjit Singh. Further, I am in full agreement with the observation of the learned FAO NO.849/2009(O&M) 4 Tribunal that the claimant in this case being a minor aged 8 years cannot be equated with the driver of the offending vehicle, a major person, as it is latter who should have been extra cautious in taking care of minors on the road. No other point has been raised. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Registry is directed to remit the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- to the learned Executing Court, for disbursement to the claimants. 18.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge