FAO No.622 of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No.622 of 1997 Date of decision:09.12.2008 Dayal Singh ......Appellant Versus Amarjeet Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.S.Shergill, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for New India Insurance Company. **** JUDGMENT SABINA, J. This is an appeal against the award dated 15.5.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed. The case of the claimant, as stated in the claim petition, in brief, is that he had suffered injuries in a road side accident on 6.7.1993 at 6.45 p.m. while going from Mohali to Sector 37, being a pillion rider on scooter No.CH-01-F-7144, near Bhullar petrol pump (Mohali Barrier) due to rash and negligent driving of respondent FAO No.622 of 1997 2 No.3-Gunwant Singh, while driving scooter No.CH-01-A-8754. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the respondents and they filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1. Whether the accident took place on 6.7.1993 due to rash and negligence of respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding the driving licence at the time of accident? OPR. 4. Relief. Parties led their evidence in support of their case. Learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, dismissed the claim petition and aggrieved by the same, claimant has filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal had erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant. The claimant had been successful in proving his case. He had suffered permanent disability due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, has submitted that the claim petition had been filed by the claimant in collusion with respondents and, as such, the same had FAO No.622 of 1997 3 been rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal, in para No.12 of its judgment, has observed as under:- “1. No information was sent to the police; No F.I.R. was recorded. No case was registered; 2. No doctor has been examined. No M.L.R. Has been produced in evidence. This evidence could have been of a great probing value because in case of accident the M.L.R. or even the case history recorded by the doctor attending on the injured incorporates the factum of injuries having been caused in road side accident. Rather this fact constitutes the 'lead' of the case history; 3. Addresses of the material respondents given in the claim petition are wrong and misleading. The respondent No.1. is mentioned to be resident of House No.4123, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh. This house does not exist. Residence of respondent No.3 Gunwant Singh driver of the alleged offending vehicle is given as House No.2217, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh which house belong to Sh.Ujagar Singh Gill i.e. father of Sh. H.N.S.Gill, Advocate for respondent No.5, who is owner of the alleged offending vehicle. Even the address of the claimant is wrong. He has given his address as House No.71, Phase 9, Mohali. It is rather residence of FAO No.622 of 1997 4 son-in-law of Sh.Ujagar Singh Gill, father of H.N.S.Gill, Advocate (Reprt Ex.W-1/A). 4. All the three parties namely the claimant, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 belong to village Landran; even the counsel Sh.H.N.S.Gill for respondent No.3 and 5 belongs to this village; 5. The respondents and the lawyer for respondents No.3 and 5 are also interrelated and interconnected. The claimant is uncle of the respondent No.1 driver. The claimant Dayal Singh is cousin of Ujagar Singh father of Sh.H.N.S.Gill, Advocate, where he has shifted to House No.4123, Sector 37-B, Chandigarh; 6. There being no information to the police, no FIR and no case history of road side accident having been told to the doctor, the claim petition was launched after about 7 months from the alleged accident (5.1.1994), when it was thought that after so much period no one would probably enquired about the details of the accident. Had the matter of the injuries (having been caused allegedly in road side accident) being reported to the doctor in PGI, they always mentioned the names of the persons who brought the injured and the police post in PGI also is informed. The Police Post in PGI is not far off; even Police Post Sector 36, Chandigarh is not far off from the complainant. The matter could have FAO No.622 of 1997 5 been reported by any of them as they are inter-related; 7. No MLR, No record of the PGI nor any prescription slip of a doctor is brought on record. This aspect also cannot be ignored; 8. Both the scooters involved in the alleged accident were insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. Neither of the scooter owners preferred any 'own damage claim' of the scooter. This aspect is also not explained; and 9. The driver of the scooter on which the claimant was allegedly the pillion rider, is not brought to the witness box at all. He was a very important witness. Keeping the said witness at bay by the claimant and very deftly arraying him as one of the respondents is a contrivance of the claimant to hoodwink the Insurance Company. There is a clear collusion.” Learned Tribunal further observed that the deposition of claimant supported by PW-2 Amrik Singh could not be relied upon. There was no explanation as to why the matter was not reported to the police. Amrik Singh (PW-2) had been unable to disclose the numbers of the two scooters. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the claim petition had been filed by the parties in collusion with each other to extract money from the Insurance Company, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, calls for no interference. Had the claimant suffered injuries in the accident, FAO No.622 of 1997 6 as alleged by him, he would have lodged an FIR against the driver of the offending vehicle. He would have also proved on record the medical evidence regarding his admission in the hospital. Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have not denied the factum of accident and have rather averred that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of respondent No.1. In these circumstances, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. (SABINA) JUDGE December 09, 2008 anita