Case: Gurdeep Singh Vs. Bhim Singh &amp; Others

some confusion with regard to the actual Registration number of the bus belonging to M/s Kataria Tours and Travellers.8. In the evidence of RW-1 - Bhim Singh (Driver of the bus owned by Haryana Roadways), it has come on record that accident had actually occurred with the bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1529 and there was no accident with bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1521. Similar is the evidence of RW-2 - Suresh Kumar, Conductor of the bus owned by Haryana Roadways, who has also deposed in the same manner in which RW-1 - Bhim Singh had deposed, that the accident had taken place between the bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1529 and the bus of Haryana Roadways, but it was on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus owned by M/s Kataria Tours and Travellers.9. Initially, the Appellant had given correct Registration number of the bus owned by M/s Kataria Tours and Travellers, but, later on, by way of amended Claim Petition filed by Appellant on 22.12.1997, he changed the bus Registration number and averred that bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1521 was involved in the accident and not the bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1529.10. We do not find the reason what prompted the Appellant to change the Registration number of the offending vehicle. It is not in dispute that soon after the accident, a report was lodged by the Appellant at the Police Station, Sadar Hansi, with regard to the said accident but the Registration number of the bus in which the Appellant was travelling, was not mentioned in the said Report. On the strength of the Report, no formal First Information Report (for short FIR) was registered, maybe for want of details. 11. It also cannot be disputed, which is even otherwise borne out from the record, that the Appellant had suffered grievous injuries in the accident as after First-Aid, he was referred to the aforesaid hospital. His permanent disability certificate is on record, issued by Dr. A.K. Singh, Consultant, Central Institute of Orthopaedics, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. He has certified that his permanent disability is to the extent of 40% physical impairment and loss of function of right lower limb. He has also given the details of the surgeries performed on the Appellant. 12. From the aforesaid facts, it cannot be disputed that Appellant did suffer injuries which he had sustained in a motor road accident but only on account of technicalities, his Claim Petition has been defeated by the Claims Tribunal. 13. Learned Single Judge of the the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh vide order dated 24.12.2008 in FAO No.3716 of, also considered this aspect of the matter but recorded a finding against the Appellant on the ground that Appellant has not been able to prove that he had been travelling in the bus which had actually met with the accident. This finding has been recorded by learned Single Judge of the High Court on the strength of the Registration number of bus given by Appellant in his Claim Petition filed in the Claims Tribunal as well as in the evidence. Thus, the learned Single Judge of the High Court also dismissed the Appeal of the Appellant. Hence, this Appeal on variety of grounds before us. 14. We have, accordingly, heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 15. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short Insurance Company) submitted that in the light of the admission made by Appellant that he was travelling in bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1521 and not in the bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1529 said to have been involved in the accident, the Claims Tribunal and the High Court committed no error in dismissing the Appellants Claim Petition as well as his Appeal. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Appellant contended that on such technicalities, the Claim Petition filed by the Appellant should not have been dismissed by the Claims Tribunal.16. The finding of the Claims Tribunal is that, in fact, the accident had taken place between the bus owned by Haryana Roadways and the bus bearing Registration No.DL-1-P-1529 of M/s Kataria Tours and Travellers. However, finding of High Court is that bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1529 was not insured with the Insurance Company (Respondent No.6 herein) and therefore, no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company. The case of the Insurance Company was that it was the bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1521 that was insured with it. But in view of the pleadings and the evidence of Appellant, he was not travelling in said bus and was travelling in bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1529 which was not insured by the Insurance Company. 17. It is a matter of common knowledge that in motor road accidents claim cases, it is very difficult to get witnesses. The eye-witnesses are also not readily available. Even if available, they are not easily ready and willing to come and depose in court of law for many reasons. Thus, we have to go by the oath of the Claimant only. From the materials available on record, it is established and crystal clear that Appellant had definitely met with the accident. He was also travelling in the bus, operated by M/s Kataria Tours and Travellers. It is also proved that the accident was between two buses on the intervening night ofth andth September, 1994.18. At the time of accident, Appellant was aged about years. He was engaged in a touring job and doing a business in Tractor spare-parts. He was earning an income of Rs.5,500/- per month out of this business. He had three college going children and wife. He became disabled after the said accident.19. Thus, looking to the facts and features of the case, we are of the considered opinion that Appellant deserves to be awarded just, proper and reasonable compensation keeping in view the medical evidence and his disability certificate.20. In view of the above,

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]17. It is a matter of common knowledge that in motor road accidents claim cases, it is very difficult to get witnesses. The eye-witnesses are also not readily available. Even if available, they are not easily ready and willing to come and depose in court of law for many reasons. Thus, we have to go by the oath of the Claimant only. From the materials available on record, it is established and crystal clear that Appellant had definitely met with the accident. He was also travelling in the bus, operated by M/s Kataria Tours and Travellers. It is also proved that the accident was between two buses on the intervening night ofth andth September, 1994.18. At the time of accident, Appellant was aged about years. He was engaged in a touring job and doing a business in Tractor spare-parts. He was earning an income of Rs.5,500/- per month out of this business. He had three college going children and wife. He became disabled after the said accident.19. Thus, looking to the facts and features of the case, we are of the considered opinion that Appellant deserves to be awarded just, proper and reasonable compensation keeping in view the medical evidence and his disability certificate.