FAO No.2034 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.2034 of 2000 Date of decision: January 07, 2009 Sunder Dass Malhotra ...Appellant Versus Ram Chander & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondents No.2 & 3. Rajan Gupta, J. This is an appeal against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat whereby claim of the appellant for damage of his car was rejected and lifting charges to the extent of Rs.520/- were granted. The claim of the appellant was based on the fact that on 26th January, 1996, when the petitioner was returning from Samalkha, a bus bearing No. HR-47-2365 being driven rashly and negligently, struck against the Fiat Car of the appellant damaging the same in the process. He thus claimed that the respondents were jointly and severally liable to compensate the appellant in respect of the damage caused to his car. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that it was the appellant who was responsible for the accident as he was driving his car in a rash and negligent manner. As regards compensation for FAO No.2034 of 2000 2 damage, the Tribunal held that the appellant had not been able to lead any evidence in that respect and thus no claim was made out. I am of the considered view that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference as the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that it was the appellant who was to be blamed for the accident as he was driving his car in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly did not grant any compensation to the appellant. Even in respect of the damage to the car, the appellant was not able to lead any evidence which could be admissible. Only a surveyor's report was produced as Mark 'X'. In any case, since it is the appellant who was responsible for the rash and negligent driving, his evidence for compensation in respect of damage to the car, would be meaningless. The appeal, therefore, is devoid of any merit. The same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE January 7, 2009 'rajpal'