FAO No.2768 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2768 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 18.12.2009 Dharminder Singh .....Appellant Versus Professor V.K. Pandit ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ravi Badyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is owner's appeal challenging the impugned award whereby the Tribunal has held that the respondent-claimant suffered injuries in the accident in question which was caused by the appellant and therefore, he is liable to pay compensation to the respondent to the tune of Rs.54,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization along with costs. Brief facts of the case are that an accident took place on 28.3.2003 between the appellant who was driving scooter No.PCI-7781 and the respondent who was driving Maruti Car bearing registration No.CHK-2922. Both the parties filed claim petitions against each other i.e. MACT No.156T of 23.7.2005 titled as Dharminder Singh v. Professor V.K. Pandit and another and MACT No.53T of 3.1.2006 titled as Professor V.K. Pandit v. Dharminder Singh and another, thereby claiming compensation. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues in the claim petition titled as Dharminder Singh v. FAO No.2768 of 2009(O&M) 2 Professor V.K. Pandit and another: “1. Whether Dharminder Singh petitioner received injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car No.CHK-2922 by respondent No.1 on 28.3.2003, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to grant of any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is false and liable to be dismissed? OPR. 4. Relief.” The Tribunal also framed issues in the other claim petition titled as Professor V.K. Pandit v. Dharminder Singh and another as under: “1. Whether claimant received injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of Scooter No.PCI-7781 by respondent No.1 on 28.3.2003? OPC 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation as to how much and from whom? OPP 3. Relief.” In both the claim petitions, the parties led evidence. On 4.11.2008, learned counsel appearing for both the parties in their respective claim petitions, suffered statements to the effect that they have no objection if both the petitions were consolidated and evidence led by them as claimant be read as their evidence in the capacity of their being respondents in the counter claim petitions. In view of the above statement, it was ordered that the evidence of respective claimants will be treated as their evidence in the form of respondent's evidence in the respective cross claim petitions. So, both the claim petitions were ordered to be FAO No.2768 of 2009(O&M) 3 consolidated. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the accident in question was caused by Dharminder Singh- appellant although he had also received injuries in the said accident along with Professor V.K. Pandit (respondent), however, he was not able to prove that the said injuries were suffered by him on account of the negligent driving of Professor V.K. Pandit. The Tribunal further held that the appellant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.54,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by the respondent in the accident in question caused by the appellant. It was further held by the Tribunal that since Dharminder Singh has not been able to prove that he received injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent, therefore, he was not entitled to any compensation and in view of the aforesaid findings, claim petition No.156T of 23.7.2005 filed by the appellant was dismissed whereas claim petition filed by the respondent was accepted and the appellant was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.54,000/- to the respondent on account of the injuries received by him in the motor vehicular accident caused by him on 28.3.2003. Challenging the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the accident in question are erroneous as the reliance of the Tribunal upon the documents Ex.P-8 i.e. Emergency Care- clinical notes where the doctor concerned has recorded his observations, that at the time of admission of the appellant in the hospital, smell of alcohol was emanating from his breath and his pupils were slightly dilated, are contrary to the statutory requirement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Elaborating his argument further, learned counsel has argued that no blood test of the appellant was carried out and therefore, it cannot be held FAO No.2768 of 2009(O&M) 4 that the appellant was found having consumed alcohol at the time of accident and therefore, it cannot be held that the accident was caused by the appellant. In support of his case, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported as Rajavalse v. State 1999 Crl.L.J.58. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. The appellant himself stepped into the witness box to support of his case and also examined PW-1 Joginder Kumar. Both of them have stated in their respective affidavits that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Professor V.K. Pandit. However, in his cross-examination, Joginder Kumar PW-1 admitted that he knew Dharminder Singh for the last 15 years as they belong to the same village. He also stated that he cannot tell width of the road and he had seen car bearing registration No.CHK-2922 from a distance of 60-70 feet. However, after examining the evidence, the Tribunal found that although Joginder Kumar stated that he had taken Dharminder Singh to hospital but he did not put his signatures/thumb impressions in the Medico Legal Report of the Government Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh. Dharminder Singh had also stated that the accident was witnessed by Jagir Singh and many other witnesses and Joginder Kumar was not named by him in his claim petition. Thus, on appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that witness Joginder Kumar was introduced by the appellant later on. The Tribunal also found from the documents Ex.R-7, Ex.R-8 and ExR-1 that Dharminder Singh was in an inebriated condition at the time of accident. Another fact that the appellant had also filed a criminal complaint Ex.P-6 but the same was not pursued, was also taken note of. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal had FAO No.2768 of 2009(O&M) 5 recorded a finding with regard to the accident in question against the appellant. Thus, findings have been recorded by the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence on the record. No contrary evidence is on the record. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant does not help him in any manner as in the present case while returning the impugned findings, the Tribunal has recorded the findings on appreciation of the entire evidence on record and not only on the basis of Ex.P-8 and thus, no fault can be found in the same as there is nothing contrary on the record to challenge the aforesaid findings. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. December 18, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE