In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 646 of 2008 Date of decision: August 10, 2009 Satpal .. Appellant Vs. Kulwant Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vishal Taneja, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Raja Bahadur Singh Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3. A.N. Jindal, J Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad, vide its order dated 15.9.2007, dismissed the claim petition filed by Satpal claimant- appellant (herein referred as 'the claimant'), under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries suffered by him. The brief resume of facts is that on 2.2.2005, at about 9.15 a.m. when the claimant along with his brother Baldev Singh and some labourers were going on truck bearing registration No.HR-62A-2125, for unloading the Bajri and crasher. Kulwant Singh was the driver of the said truck. When they reached a little ahead of village Akanwali, then a big stone lying on the road was witnessed, therefore, Kulwant Singh asked the claimant to get down from the truck and remove the stone from the road. Consequently, when the claimant was removing the stone, in the meanwhile, the respondent No.1 while driving truck rashly and negligently passed over the right foot of the claimant crushing the same. The claimant was taken to the Rajashthan Medical Centre Tohana for treatment. Consequently, the claimant set up a claim to the tune of Rs.4 lacs stating that the respondent No.1 being the driver, respondent No.2 being the owner and the respondent No.3 being the insurer are jointly and severely responsible for payment of compensation. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed :- F.A.O. No. 646 of 2008 -2- 1. Whether Satpal received injuries in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 2.2.2005 by use of truck bearing registration No.HR62A-2125 by Kulwant Singh (respondent No.1), which was owned by Ranjeet Kaur (respondent No.2) and was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited (respondent No.3)?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether Satpal petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, how much?OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act?OPR-3 4. Whether the truck in question was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid and effective driving licence?OPR-3 5. Whether the truck was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy?OPR-3 6. Relief. In order to prove his claim, the claimant himself stepped into the witness box as PW-2 and tendered his affidavit Ex.PW2/A testifying that on 2.2.2005 at about 9.15 a.m. he along with his brother Baldev Singh and some labourers were going in a truck bearing registration No.HR-62A- 2125 driven by Kulwant Singh for unloading Bajri and Crasher in village Kulan. When they reached ahead of village Akanwali, they saw a big stone lying on the road and, therefore, the driver asked him to remove the stone from the road. He has further deposed that as soon as he got down from the truck and was in the process of removing the stone, Kulwant Singh started the truck all of a sudden, as a result of which, his right foot came under the front tyre. He was admitted in Rajasthan Medical Centre, Tohana. He has further deposed that on 10.2.2005, C. Bahadur Singh came in the hospital and recorded his rapat No.20 dated 10.2.2005. Having gone through the statement made by the claimant, it may be observed that no reliance could be placed on the same as there is nothing in his statement suggesting that truck bearing registration No.HR62A-2125 was involved in the accident. No doubt, the accident took place on 2.2.2005 but no FIR was got registered by the claimant against the driver i.e. respondent No.1. There is no denying a fact that the claimant F.A.O. No. 646 of 2008 -3- remained admitted in Rajasthan Medical Centre, Tohana up to 16.2.2005, but the matter was not reported to the police till 10.2.2005 as stated by Dr. Parveen Arora (PW3). No satisfactory explanation has been put forth as to under what circumstances, the claimant remained silent for 8 days and did not report the matter to the police. Further more, Dr. Parveen Arora (PW3) has categorically deposed that on 2.2.2005, the claimant was admitted in Rajasthan Medical Centre, Tohana with the history of suffering the injuries on account of accident by a tractor. During cross examination he has admitted that on the first day i.e. 2.2.2005, when the claimant visited the hospital, history was given by his attendants that the accident occurred on account of involvement of the tractor, therefore, involvement of the truck bearing registration No.HR-62A-2125 in the accident is sheerly a concoction. It has also come on record that the claimant along with his brother Baldev Singh and 4-5 labourers was travelling in the truck, but none of them appeared in the witness box to prove the involvement of the truck in the accident. Therefore, the accident cannot be said to have taken place with the involvement of truck bearing registration No.HR-61A-2125 driven by the respondent No.1. In the result, no interference could be made with the observations made by the Tribunal. Dismissed. August 10, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge