IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO 5225/2008 Date of Decision:17.3.2009. Daljit Singh ..........Appellant Versus Mange Ram and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. R.S.Budhwar,Advocate for the appellant-claimant. JASWANT SINGH,J Appellant-injured claimant has preferred this appeal against the award dated 1.10.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby his claim petition, filed 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 took place on 23.11.2005, was dismissed. It is the sole contention of the learned counsel that despite sufficient evidence having been adduced by the appellant, the learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition filed by him. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award, I am of the considered opinion, that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is perfectly in consonance with the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it and no fault can be found with the same. FAO 5225/2008 -2- The case of the appellant in his claim petition was that on 23.11.2005 he was going to his dera on Pabni Side, on his motorcycle no. HR- 01-A-6394 between 10 pm and 10.30 pm, when the motor (description i.e. category viz.two wheeler, four wheeler etc., or its make, model or colour is missing in the claim petition) driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner came and struck against the motorcycle of the appellant near the dera of one Gurcharan Singh in the area of Village Pabni Kalan. As a result of the said accident riders of both the motorcycles fell down in which process the appellant allegedly received multiple and grievous injuries including amputation of three toes of his right foot. The said accident was alleged to have been witnessed by one Man Singh. It was further alleged by the appellant that the other two occupants(including respondent no.2- Rajinder Kumar-alleged owner of offending vehicle-motorcycle) ran away from the scene of occurrence leaving behind offending vehicle and Mange Ram- respondent no.1, alleged driver of the aforesaid offending vehicle. It was further alleged that in the meanwhile Nirmal Singh, brother of the appellant reached there, who with the help of other persons admitted him in Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, where he remained admitted from 24.11.2005 to 5.12.2005 and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was incurred on his treatment. It may be mentioned here that respondent no.1 i.e. Mange Ram, alleged driver of the offending vehicle was proceeded against ex parte. In his written statement, respondent no.2-alleged owner of the offending motor cycle denied involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident and pleaded that he had been falsely implicated by the appellant. FAO 5225/2008 -3- Similarly respondent no.3 i.e. the Insurer of the offending motorcycle also challenged the maintainability of the claim petition on the ground that number of the alleged offending motorcycle was not mentioned in the FIR, which was got registered against Mange Ram, alleged driver whereas the trial was being faced by respondent no.2 i.e.Rajinder Kumar the alleged owner of the offending vehicle. The insurer of the offending vehicle also took up a plea that since at the time of accident respondent no.1- i.e. Mange Ram the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence hence the name of driver was changed to respondent no.2 i.e. Rajinder Kumar, the alleged owner of the offending vehicle. Appellant, did not file any rejoinder to controvert the denial of his claim by the respondents 2 and 3 in their separate written statements. On the pleadings of the parties learned Tribunal framed various issues, and in order to discharge the onus thereof, respective parties led evidence. Since the claim petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal, suffice it would be to deal with relevant issue no. 1 (out of total 4), which is reproduced as under:- “1. Whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of motor cycle No.HR-02-M-5269 by respondent no.1, as alleged? OPP. In order to prove this issue appellant appeared as PW-7 and reiterated the stand taken by him in his claim petition, However, he could not FAO 5225/2008 -4- tell the description of the offending vehicle i.e., registration number etc. nor could tell as to who was driving that vehicle at the time of accident. He admitted that the FIR was registered at his instance. The learned Tribunal observed that in the FIR though the registration number of the offending vehicle was not given however, it was mentioned therein that it was being driven by Mange Ram-respondent no.1. Another factor, worth consideration, which goes against the appellant is the non-examination of Man Singh, who is alleged to have witnessed the accident. Even police had recorded the statement of said Man Singh to show that respondent no.2-Rajinder Kumar was driving the motor cycle. Despite all this, for the reasons best known to him the appellant chose not to examine said star witness Man Singh. Still further, as per claim petition, the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Mange Ram, whereas the learned Tribunal, on perusing the file of the criminal proceedings going on in the FIR in question, found that in said proceedings it is Rajinder Kumar, who is facing the trial. This factual inconsistency, in my considered opinion, rightly led the learned Tribunal to disbelieve the version of the appellant regarding the manner in which the accident is alleged to have taken place. I also find force in the stand taken by respondent no.3-Insurer of the offending vehicle, in its written statement that the accident did not take place in the manner alleged in the claim petition and since respondent no.1 was not having a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident so the name of the driver was changed to respondent no.2, who was having a valid driving FAO 5225/2008 -5- licence. This obviously was done simply to get compensation,which attempt of the appellant has rightly been scuttled 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. 17.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge