FAO No.1799 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1799 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision 22 .1.2010. Yogender ...... Appellant. versus Sunil Kumar and another ...... Respondents. Present : Mr. Y.P.Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.D.P.Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.2. K.C.PURI. J. There is a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. Main appeal. This is an appeal filed by the claimant against the Award dated 5.9.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, vide which the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant stood dismissed. The case of the appellant in brief is that on 25.11.2001, the appellant was driving the dumper bearing registration No.HR-38C-1866 for going from Pali to village Sehatpur District Faridabad, at a very moderate FAO No.1799 of 2008 2 speed and with due care and caution. When he reached in front of Hanuman Mandir Badkhal, suddenly a woman came in front of his dumper and he tried to save her, thereby the dumper turned turtle, resulting in multiple grievous and simple injuries all over his body including fracture in his right leg. The appellant remained admitted in Arora Ortho Centre, N.I.T. Faridabad from 25.11.2001 to 27.11.2005. On his statement a DDR was registered at Police Post Badkhal, Disrict Faridabad. The appellant spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on his treatment, special diet etc. and had also become permanently disabled due to the injuries and therefore, filed claim petition claiming therein Rs.5,00,000/-. The petition was contested by the respondents. Following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Yogender petitioner sustained injuries arising out of the use of dumper bearing registration No.HR-038C-1866 in front of Hanuman Mandir, Gurgaon Road at Village Badkhal, Faridabad, within the jurisdiction of Police Station NIT, Fariadbad, at about 12.00 noon on 25.11.2001. If so to what effect ?OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. If so, how much and from whom ?OPP. 3. Whether the petitioner/claimant was not holding any valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. If so its effect ?OPR-2. 4. Relief. The parties have led their respective evidence. The learned Tribunal after appraisal of the Award dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant holding that there was nothing on the record to establish that the claimant was driver of the dumper in question on the relevant date and FAO No.1799 of 2008 3 time. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid decision, the claimant- appellant filed the present appeal. The accident in this case has taken place on 25.11.2001. The DDR indicating by lodging DDR on 5.4.2002 i.e. about four months after the alleged occurrence. The Tribunal after going through the evidence reached to the conclusion that claimant has failed to prove that claimant has suffered injures due to use of dumper bearing registration No. HR-38C- 1866. That finding is based upon the evidence produced before the Tribunal. In the cross-examination, the claimant has stated that FIR was lodged after 10-12 days of the accident but no FIR was registered only DDR was recorded on 5.4.2002 i.e. after four months and ten days of the alleged occurrence. PW-1 Dr.Suresh Arora has not produced the hospital record evidencing that the claimant at the time of his stay has suffered injuries on account of lost control over the dumper. So, adverse inference has rightly been drawn by the Tribunal against the appellant-claimant. So, in these circumstances, no ground for interference in the finding of the trial Court on the issues is made out. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE January 22, 2010 sv