FAO No. 2194 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH F. A. O. No. 2194 of 2005 Date of Decision: December 05, 2008 Raj Kumar ...........Appellant Versus Parveen Kumar and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Brijender Kaushik,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the New India Assurance Company Ltd. * * * Sabina, J. This appeal has been filed against the award dated 11.12.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amabala ( hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-Raj Kumar, claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident, was dismissed. The case of the claimant, as stated, in the claim petition was that on 13.5.2003 at about 9.15 P.M., he was returning to his house, after closing his shop, on his scooter No. HR-01-D-1805. When he reached FAO No. 2194 of 2005 2 ahead of Obroi Filling Station situated on G.T. Road, Amabala City, a car No. HR-01-N-9025 came from behind and struck against the scooter driven by the claimant. As a result of this, claimant fell down and suffered serious injuries. Hence, the claim petition was filed. On notice, respondents filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the accident causing injuries to Raj Kumar occurred due to rash and negligent driving of wagon R bearing No. HR-01-N-9025? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence?OPR-3 4. Whether claimant and respondent No.2 have colluded with each other ?OPR-3 5. Relief.” Thereafter, respondents No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal had erred in disbelieving the testimony of eye witness-Harkesh (PW2). The said witness had duly witnessed the accident and had rushed the injured to the hospital for treatment. Learned counsel for the Insurance company, on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal had rightly observed that Harkesh (PW2) had not witnessed the accident and had been introduced later in connivance with respondents No. 1 and 2, with a view that the claimant may get compensation. FAO No. 2194 of 2005 3 Dr. Shashi Kumar (PW3) deposed that the patient was brought by Head Constable Lachhman Singh of National Highway-1 Road Security Mohra Incharge and one Jatinder Kumar Yadav. Learned Tribunal while deciding issues No. 1 and 2 has held that Harkesh (PW2) had not witnessed the accident. It was further observed that Exhibits R1 and R2 were initial records of admission of the appellant in the PGI Chandigarh. As per Exhibit R1, it was mentioned with regard to the details of accident as "not known" and “patient found road side at Amabla”. It was also mentioned on the initial admission card that the exact details "not known" and the "patient smells of alcohol". From this, it can be inferred that the appellant was lying on the road side in an injured condition and was brought to PGI Chandigarh by Head Constable Lachman singh and Jitender Yadav. The appellant was also smelling of alcohol. It is possible that the accident might have occurred due to negligence of the appellant himself. FIR in this case was registered on 14.5.2003 on the basis of the statement of Harkesh (PW2), whereas, the accident had taken place on 13.5.2003. Had PW2 actually witnessed the occurrence and accompanied the appellant to PGI, Chandigarh, his name would have been mentioned in the initial records of admission of the appellant and he would have also narrated the details of accident which are missing in the initial records of admission of the appellant. The said witness could not tell the colour of the Wagon R car or whether anything had been fixed at the top of the car during his cross-examination. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the claimant had failed to prove issues No. 1 and 2 as the alleged eye witness examined by the claimant had not witnessed the accident. The said FAO No. 2194 of 2005 4 finding of the learned Tribunal calls for no interference. The appeal being without any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Sabina ) Judge December 05, 2008 arya