F.A.O. No. 3336 of 2009 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 3336 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 26th,2011 Pankaj Kumar Saini .... Appellant Versus Gurlabh Singh alias Gulab Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is claimant's appeal challenging the award dated 10.2.2009 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which the claim petition brought by the appellant has been dismissed. The claim petition which was originally brought under the provisions of section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) was later on converted on the prayer of the appellant into one under section 166 of the Act. The brief facts required to be F.A.O. No. 3336 of 2009 2 .. noticed for deciding this appeal are as under: On 15.3.2006 at about 6.45 PM, Pankaj Kumar was returning to his village Kanhari Khurd from Jagadhri on a motor cycle bearing registration No. HR07D-8737, which was driven by Gurlabh Singh alias Gulab Singh - respondent No.1. The claimant was riding its pillion. Gurlabh Singh drove the motor cycle at a very fast speed as also in a rash and negligent manner. He was moving the vehicle in a zigzag manner. He even did not slow the vehicle inspite of the request of the claimant made several times. When the motor cycle was in the area of village Kanhari Khurd, near Sugarcane Purchase Centre, Gurlabh Singh had hit the motor cycle into one Mam Chand at his back side, who was pushing his cart at that time. As a consequence of this accident, Gurlabh Singh fell down and suffered multiple injuries on his person. For this accident, a report was made to the police at Police Station Chhappar, where DDR No.18 dated 19.3.2006 was recorded. Pankaj Kumar has claimed himself to have suffered injuries on his head, eye, right leg, etc. and took treatment from Jindal Brain, Spine and Trauma Centre, Jagadhri. He is claimed to have spent Rs.45,000/- on his treatment and has claimed that the injuries have left him disabled. He has claimed a sum of Rs.4.00 lakhs as compensation. The respondents resisted the claim petition. While respondents No.1 has denied the accident and involvement of his vehicle in the accident, respondent No. 2, the insurer of the vehicle, F.A.O. No. 3336 of 2009 3 .. has denied the locus standi of the claimant to file the petition. It is also claimed that respondent No.1 did not possess a licence to drive the vehicle. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1. Whether the accident in question resulting into the death of Mam Chand and injuries on claimant Pankaj Kumar was caused due to the involvement of Motor Cycle bearing registration No.HR07-D-8737? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what compensation, the petitioners entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the vehicle was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the company is absolved of its liability?OPR 4. Relief. Taking the evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition solely on the finding recorded by her on issue No.1. Learned Tribunal has held that claimant Pankaj Kumar Saini failed to establish the negligence of driver of motor cycle as cause of this accident, which is required to be proved in his petition pursued under section 166 of the Act. Consequently, the petition for compensation was dismissed. F.A.O. No. 3336 of 2009 4 .. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimant has brought this appeal. I have heard Shri Rajnish Narula, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ashwani Bakshi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Mrigank Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant himself appeared in the witness box and had made a statement reproduced in para No. 5 of the grounds of appeal. According to him, this evidence was sufficient to prove that the accident was an outcome of rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by respondent No.1 – Gurlabh Singh. According to him, the appellant was travelling on pillion of the motor cycle and since the accident had been an outcome of rash and negligent driving of motor cycle, the claimant became third party for the purpose of the insurance company and his claim could not be dismissed. In this case, the claimant himself mentioned in his claim petition that DDR No. 18 dated 19.3.2006 was recorded at Police Station Chapper regarding this accident. The record reveals that this DDR was recorded on the statement of the appellant himself. He had clearly mentioned in the said DDR that Gurlabh Singh, respondent No.1, was not at fault for this accident and that same is not a result of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle. Contrary to his said statement, the appellant made a F.A.O. No. 3336 of 2009 5 .. statement while appearing as PW7 in his claim petition and the same was held unreliable for two reasons; there was no other evidence to corroborate it and the same was at conflict with his previous statement. Learned Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in recording finding against the appellant under issue No.1. The dismissal of the claim petition, therefore, cannot be held unjustified in any manner. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 26th , 2011 som