IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- F.A.O. No. 569 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.2.2008 Navjot Singh and another --- Appellants Versus Ikam Singh --- Respondent === CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Preetwinder Singh, Advocate for the appellants. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order will govern the disposal of two appeals, viz. F.A.O. Nos. 569 and 570 of 2008, as the same arise out of the same award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short “the Tribunal”), passed on 12.12.2007. These appeals have been filed by the driver and the owner of the Farm Track Tractor bearing registration No. PB-42A/4314 involved in the accident (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) praying that the award of the Tribunal may be set aside. Ekam Singh (injured) and Dilpreet Kaur (owner of the damaged car), filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”). Both the petitions were disposed of by a common award by the Tribunal. It was averred that on 15.5.2005, Ekam Singh –claimant along with three others was traveling in a car bearing registration No. HR-31- C/0067 and when it reached near Bus Stand, Kamalpur, on Samana-Nawan F.A.O. No. 569 of 2008 Goan road, the offending vehicle, being driven by Navjot Singh, appellant, came from right side of the road all of a sudden. Bahadur Singh, driver of the car applied brake, but despite that the car hit against the offending vehicle and as a result of which the car was damaged and the claimant- Ekam Singh along with other occupants of the car received injuries. Ekam Singh received injuries on his head, and his right arm was fractured due to which he suffered permanent disability. Ultimately, Ekam Singh suffered disablement. It was stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The Tribunal on appraisal of the evidence on record, held that the claimant-Ekam Singh had received injuries and the car, which was owned by Dilpreet Kaur, was damaged in the accident. It was also held that the accident had been caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver- Navjot Singh. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimant- Ekam Singh as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him and a sum of Rs. 54,500/- to Dilpreet Kaur-claimant on account of damages caused to the car. The Tribunal further ordered that the claimants in both the petitions shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the finding of the Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, on the ground that the same was contrary to record. Further, the counsel submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 2 F.A.O. No. 569 of 2008 A perusal of the impugned award shows that the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver is based on cogent and trust-worthy evidence. Ekam Singh, the claimant- respondent in F.A.O. No. 569 of 2008 categorically deposed in his affidavit Exhibit PW1/A that on 15.5.2005, he along with others was traveling in the car from Barnala to Trori, District Karnal, to attend a Bhog ceremony and at that time, one of them, namely, Bahadur Singh was on the wheels of the car and had been driving the car on its correct side when the accident took place with the offending vehicle. It was further stated by him that on account of the said accident, he received injuries and had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50% and to prove the disability certificate Exhibit PW2/A, he examined Dr. Suresh Goel as PW-2. This finding could not be successfully rebutted by the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. While recording finding on this aspect, the Tribunal observed that though the driver of the offending vehicle alleged that the accident had not taken place with the vehicle driven by him and he had been falsely implicated in the case, but there was no evidence on record to show that he had approached the higher authorities raising his grievance in that behalf. Mere denial of a fact does not give the guilty a right to go scot-free. This contention of the counsel is thus, rejected. As regards the question of compensation, the damage caused to the car is writ large from testimony of PW-1 Harish Kumar which is supported by documentary evidence in the shape of bills of repair of the car, Exhibits P-1 to P-3. It was on the basis of this unchallenged evidence that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 54,500/- as compensation on account of damages to the car. No evidence was led by the appellants to falsify the claim put forward by the claimant-respondents or to deny compensation to 3 F.A.O. No. 569 of 2008 them. While awarding compensation to Ekam Singh, the Tribunal has given the details of the different amounts awarded under various heads. Nothing could be pointed out by the counsel that the findings of the Tribunal are wrong or illegal in any manner. The amount of compensation awarded in both the claim petitions noticed above, cannot be said to be excessive. The counsel could not show any error of law or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal on both the aspects so as to persuade this Court to interfere with the same. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) February 20, 2008 JUDGE *MALIK* 4