In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 1734 of 2007 Date of decision: September 08, 2009 Mahinder Singh .. Appellant Vs. Basa Ram and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the respondent No.1. A.N. Jindal, J This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.2.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, dismissing the claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by the appellant- claimant Mahinder Singh (herein referred as 'the claimant'), in a motor vehicular accident. Factual scenario of the case is that on 14.5.2005, at about 11.00 p.m. the claimant was standing on Umri Chowk G.T. Road for crossing the road. In the meantime, respondent No.1 while driving canter bearing registration No. UP-17-2257 rashly and negligently came from the Karnal side without blowing horn and dashed it in the claimant, resultantly, he received injuries. He was 50 years old and driver by profession. He was drawing salary of Rs.4200/- per month and spent Rs.50,000/- on the medicines, special diet and transportation. FIR No.132 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar Thanesar. On service, the respondents No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte. However, the respondent No.3-Insurance Company contested the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal vide order dated 24.7.2006 framed the following issues :- F.A.O. No. 1734 of 2007 -2- *** 1. Whether the motor vehicle accident that took place on 14.5.2005 is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of Canter No.UP-17-2257 by Basa Ram respondent No.1?OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation on account of injuries he suffered in the aforesaid accident? If so, to what amount?OPP 3. Whether the respondent-driver of Canter No.UP-17-2257 was not having valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident?OPR 4. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed in view of preliminary objections and additional pleas taken by the insurance company?OPR 5. Relief. In order to prove the issues, the claimant examined Dr. P.K. Soni (PW1), Dr. Vikas Goel (PW2), Mahinder Singh claimant (PW3), Maan Singh (PW4) and tendered into evidence copy of the FIR Ex.P4, disability certificate Ex.P5, medical bills Ex.P6 to P21, certified copy of he judgment dated 22.10.2005 Ex.P22, certified copy of the statement Ex.P23. To the contrary, the respondent No.3 examined Nasib Singh, Advocate investigator of the criminal case as RW-1. In fact, in the present case, the claimant has failed to establish if the accident took place by involvement of Canter No.UP-17-2257 driven by the respondent No.1. Even according to the claimant, the occurrence was witnessed by Surjit Singh, Dharam Singh and Baljit Singh, but none out of them was examined and I am left with the statement of the claimant only. However, his statement is also not trustworthy inasmuch as in the ruqa Ex.P1, proved by the claimant himself on the record, through the testimony of the doctor, reveals that the accident took place on account of the fault on the part of maruti car of blue colour. This information was given to the doctor by Surjit Singh son of the claimant, who was present at the time of occurrence, but unfortunately Surjit Singh was also not examined. As such, it is difficult to place reliance on the improved version authored some time F.A.O. No. 1734 of 2007 -3- *** later stating that the accident took place on account of the involvement of the canter bearing registration No.UP-17-2257. As such, in the given circumstances of the case, no reliance could be placed on the statement of the claimant. Consequently, the findings returned by the Tribunal on all the issues stand affirmed. Resultantly, finding no merits in the appeal the same is dismissed. September 08, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge