C.M.No.5982-CII of 2009 and #1# FAO.No.1235 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.5982-CII of 2009 and FAO.No.1235 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Order: 4.5.2009 New India Assurance Company Ltd .....Petitioners Versus Kamal and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) C.M.No.5982-CII of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 12 days' in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.1235 of 2009 Appellant-Insurance Company has laid challenge to order dated 4.11.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad whereby the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 moved by respondent No.1-injured was allowed and he was granted compensation of Rs.39535/- along with interest @ 7.5 per annum. Briefly, the facts as stated in the claim petition are that on C.M.No.5982-CII of 2009 and #2# FAO.No.1235 of 2009 (O&M) 19.2.2006 at about 8.00 PM, respondent No.1-claimant Kamal along with his friend Idrish was going to village Mohala on the motor cycle to attend a marriage party. On the way, a motor-cycle bearing No.HR-29M/0439, owned and driven by respondent No.2-Yasveer Singh and insured by the appellant-New India Assurance Company in a very rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and struck the motor-cycle driven by respondent No.1-claimant as a result he fell down on the road and suffered fracture in his right leg and injury on his head. He was immediately removed to Bhatia Nursing Home, where he was treated by the doctor. Respondent No.1-claimant Kamal lodged an FIR No.90 dated 24.2.2006 in the Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh against respondent No.2 Yasveer. Then he filed the aforesaid claim petition, which was allowed in the aforesaid terms on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that there was delay of 5 days in lodging the FIR and there was no mention of the number of the motor-cycle in the FIR and that neither the co-rider of the claimant namely Idrish (PW3) had promptly lodged the FIR nor had he taken the injured to the hospital nor suffered any injury in the alleged accident and, therefore, it was contended that a false case has been planted for realization of a fictitious claim on the appellant-Insurance Company. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, in my considered opinion, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant are devoid of any merit. In summary proceedings envisaged by the legislature for deciding accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, learned C.M.No.5982-CII of 2009 and #3# FAO.No.1235 of 2009 (O&M) Tribunal has to assess the evidence led before it so as to come to a conclusion as to whether any accident had taken place as alleged and the claimant is entitled to any compensation. In the present case, it is relevant to take into consideration that the accident had taken place on 19.2.2006 at 8.00 PM. Claimant Kamal being injured was admitted in Bhatia Orthopaedic & Maternity Nursing Home, Sector 7-B, Faridabad on the same day at 9.10 PM. This fact is borne from a perusal of Ex.P.13, copy of MLR, which shows the time of admission as 9.10 PM. Ex.P.13 also reveals that the Doctor had immediately sent information to the Incharge, Police Station, Sector 7, Faridabad regarding the admission of the claimant on account of having sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident. Learned trial Court in para 19 of its award, on perusal of the evidence produced on record, has rightly observed that it was for the police authorities to take further action and on account of the lapse on their part in recording the FIR after 05 days, no blame could be put on the claimant- Kamal for laxity on part of the police in not promptly recording the statement of the claimant-Kamal(PW1). Claimant-appellant had proved on record Ex.P.14, copy of Ex- ray report, which establishes the fractures of the right leg suffered by him in the accident. He had further produced Doctor R.S. Gupta as PW2 to prove that he had suffered injuries and was admitted in the hospital and that he remained under his treatment and incurred necessary medical expenses. As regards the non-filing of the FIR and not sustaining any injury by Idrish though alleged to be co-rider with the claimant, in my considered opinion, no reference is required to be made as the testimony of the injured-claimant corroborated by the medical evidence is sufficient to C.M.No.5982-CII of 2009 and #4# FAO.No.1235 of 2009 (O&M) prove the accident. Learned Tribunal in para 18 of its award has held that the mere fact that PW3-Idrish did not accompany the injured to the hospital or did not make any efforts to lodge the FIR with the police, in itself is not sufficient enough to discredit the consistent testimonies of PW1 (claimant- Kamal) and PW3 (Idrish). Both the testimonies stood the test of sustained cross- examination. As regards the non-mentioning of registration number of the offending Motor-cycle is concerned, learned Tribunal, in para 20 of its award, has rightly observed that “However, in the case in hand, the petitioner has specifically mentioned the name of the driver of the offending vehicle and omission of mentioning registration number of the offending vehicle in itself is not fatal, once the identity of the motor cycle and its driver is otherwise established.” It is also not disputed that the driver-respondent No.2 Yasveer Singh is facing criminal trial before the learned trial Court for causing the accident due to his negligent driving. In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 4.11.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad. Dismissed. May 04, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE