FAO No. 2318 OF 2009 (o&m) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2318 OF 2009 (o&m) Date of decision: 13.9.2011 Jyoti Ram ...Appellant Versus Ashok Bansal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Robin Dutt, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Jastej Singh Arora, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr.Gopal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company *** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(Oral) The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 24.11.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant -appellant was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that appellant alongwith Mewa Ram and Suresh Kumar was riding on a motorcycle on 19.12.2006. While he was entering from the link road to main road, a car bearing registration No. HR-17-E-0087 coming on the main road struck against his motorcycle, which resulted into his injuries. The appellant was rushed to the Jain Hospital by respondent No.1, the driver of the said car. The appellant was discharged from the hospital on 25.12.2006. He made a statement before FAO No. 2318 OF 2009 (o&m) 2 the police. Pursuant thereof, a DDR No.9 dated 25.12.2006 Ex.P5 was recorded. As per the same, nobody was found responsible for the alleged accident. As per the DDR, recorded on the statement of complainant himself, a cyclist came in front of his motorcycle and in order to save him, respondent driver applied the brakes and his car struck against the motorcycle. He was removed to the hospital of Dr.Deepa Jain. It is specifically recorded in the DDR that the accident took place during the efforts to save the said cyclist and no one was responsible for the same. The number of the vehicle was mentioned in the DDR as HR 17E-0081. On 9.3.2007, the appellant filed the claim petition and asserted that DDR Ex.P5 was recorded on frivolous facts. He further asserted that the number of vehicle in question was not rightly mentioned in the DDR, rather it is HR 17E-0087. He further asserted that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. A reply was filed on behalf of the respondents, in which specific stand was taken that the claim petition filed by the appellant is totally contrary to the DDR Ex.P5 recorded on the basis of the statement of the appellant himself. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Car No.HR17- E-0087 by respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation petitioner Jyoti Ram is entitled to FAO No. 2318 OF 2009 (o&m) 3 receive on account of the injuries received by him in this accident? OPP 3. Who is liable for payment of compensation ? OP parties. 4. Whether the car in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company. If so, to what effect? OPR-3 5. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition mainly on the ground that there were material contradictions in the versions rendered in the DDR and subsequent pleadings made in the claim petition. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that after the accident, he was removed to the hospital by the driver of the car. However, the claimant was not known to the driver of the offending vehicle. Further contended, that the correct facts could not be reflected in the DDR. The car number which reflected in DDR is not HR-17E 0081, rather the same is HR 17-E-0087. He has also referred para No.8 of the written statement filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 1A, wherein assertion made in the claim petition was admitted to the extent of place, date and time of alleged accident in question. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition, as there is total deviation from the initial version i.e. DDR Ex.P5 and the claim FAO No. 2318 OF 2009 (o&m) 4 petition. The learned counsel has further argued that appellant himself was negligent as he was coming on the main road from a link road primarily it was his duty to be more vigilant as compared to the vehicle which was coming on the main road. It is further submitted that from the statement of the appellant, it is clear that he saw the car in question from a distance. However, no best effort was made by him to avoid the accident. Mainly, he has asserted that in view of the material contradictions, in the DDR and the claim petition, the claimant is not entitled to get compensation as he blew hot and cold in the same breath and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. On behalf of respondent No.3, Mr.Gopal Mittal, Advocate contends that the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, in the DDR, no assertion to the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, he has pleaded to maintain the award dismissing the claim petition passed by the learned Tribunal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. The versions given in the DDR and the claim petition are absolutely different in contents and assertion. The appellant was discharged from the hospital on 25.12.2006. There is no proof of the fact that DDR was recorded in the hospital. There is nothing on record to suggest that the ruqa was not sent on the same day on the date of the accident or was sent on 25.12.2006 itself. The delay in lodging the DDR also indicates the fact that the DDR was recorded after the discharge of the FAO No. 2318 OF 2009 (o&m) 5 appellant from the hospital and assertion that the true facts pertaining to the accident have not come on record in the DDR, cannot be taken as a gospel truth. From the record it is established that respondent No.1 Ashok Bansal removed the appellant -injured to the hospital and the accident took place during the efforts to save the cyclist present at the site, which together mentioned in the claim petition. Moreover, it is case of the appellant that three people were riding on a motorcycle, whereas the appellant has concealed the name of his co-passenger Mewa Ram for the reasons best known to him. Neither Mewa Ram nor Suresh Kumar, who were riding with the appellant on the motorcycle, have been examined in the instant case. Therefore, the claim petition appears to have been projected as an after thought and appears to be an effort to get compensation, which has rightly been rejected by the learned Tribunal. No other point has been urged or agitated either by the counsel. As a sequel of the above discussion, this appeal is dismissed being bereft of any merit. 13.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No