FAO. NO.3412 OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF ORDER: 20.3.2009 Ram Singh ....Appellant Versus Kuldeep Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant-claimant. Mr. Raj Kumar Bishamboo, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company. JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) By filing the present appeal, claimant-appellant has challenged the award dated 16.4.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby his claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short the Act) seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that allegedly took place on 26.10.2003, was dismissed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimant that the learned Tribunal, despite sufficient evidence adduced by the appellant in support of his claim, has wrongly dismissed his claim petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and Insurance Company and perusing the impugned award I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Briefly facts of the case are that on 26.10.2003, at about 6.00 FAO. NO.3412 OF 2008 2 PM, appellant along with his brother Sultan Singh son of Richpal was standing at bus stand of Village Sinthala to board a bus for going to Dhollu. In the meantime, a motor cycle No.HR-20-J/4466 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) driven by Kuldeep Singh-respondent No.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3 herein, came from Bhuana side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant as a result of which he suffered as grievous injuries including external and internal head injuries and became unconscious at the spot. He was shifted to General Hospital, Bhuana by his brother Sultan Singh from where he was shifted to Medical College, Rohtak and then to Holy Help Hospital, Hisar. He allegedly remained admitted there upto 26.11.2003. With these allegations, a claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Act, which has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide award impugned herein. Respondents 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle denied the alleged accident and took the stand that the appellant himself fell down on the road and was never hit by the offending vehicle. It was also stated that it is thereafter that Sultan Singh reached the spot and took the appellant to the hospital. Respondent no.3 i.e. insurer of the vehicle also denied the factum of accident and inter alia took the stand that the claim petition was a result of collusion between the claimant and respondents 1 and 2. The claimant in support of his claim examined himself as PW2 and examined aforesaid Sultan Singh as PW1. Besides that the appellant did not lead any documentary evidence to prove that he had received the injuries in the alleged accident. The learned Tribunal has found that in this FAO. NO.3412 OF 2008 3 case a DDR was got recorded but the same was not proved by the claimant willfully, since as per that DDR all of a sudden a dog appeared before the offending vehicle and in order to save that dog the accident took place. In other words, the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, as alleged in the claim petition. Had claimant proved this DDR it would have belied his claim that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The learned Tribunal also did not lose sight of the collusion between the claimant and respondents 1 and 2 to claim false compensation in this case, as per stand taken by respondent no.3-i.e. Insurer of the offending vehicle. In my opinion, on the basis of material available on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant has not been able to prove that the accident, in which he suffered injuries, took place in the manner claimed by him. No fault can be found with this finding recorded by the learned Tribunal. No other point has been raised. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 20.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge