IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.74 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 19, 2014 Ram Tapsya Tiwari ....Appellant versus Jatinder Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present: Mr.A.P.Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
Kuldip Singh.
J (Oral) Ram Tapsya Tiwari (petitioner).whose claim petition filed under Section 166 Motor Vehicle Act, 1989, for grant of compensation was dismissed, vide Award dated 24.08.1991, has preferred this appeal against the Award of the Tribunal.
According to the petitioner, on 07.09.1989, he was engaged on truck at Nagra Godown of Punjab State Ware House Cooperation.
After loading the truck, he was standing near the truck with his back towards the truck.
The driver of the truck without giving any signal or horn reversed the same and struck the same against the petitioner with force.
As a result of the accident, petitioner received multiple injuries.
He was admitted in Civil Hospital as indoor patient, where he was operated upon and his right arm was amputated at wrist level.
He has become permanently disabled.
He claimed ` 3,00,000/- as compensation.
Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their joint Rani Sarita written statement pleaded that petitioner suddenly without caring for 2014.02.25 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.74 of 1992 (O&M) -2- the truck tried to cross to the other side of the road and got hit by the truck.
It was stated that he was not standing near the truck with his back towards the truck.
Insurance Company, however, took the plea that it was negligence of the petitioner and he is not entitled to any compensation.
From the pleadings, following issues were framed: “ 1.
Whether the petitioner is within limitation?.OPA2 Whether the accident in question took place on 7.9.89 due to the rash and negligent driving of Jatinder Singh, respondent No.1 and the claimant sustained injuries and to what extent?.
OPA3 If issue No.2 is proved whether the claimant is entitled to compensation M If so, to what amount and from whom?.
OPA4 Relied.”
.
While deciding issue Nos.2 and 3, the Tribunal took the view that the accident as alleged is not proved.
Hence the claim petition was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has argued that in this case, driver and owner of the truck have admitted the accident, though the manner of the accident has been denied.
Therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that accident is not proved.
He has further argued that the accident is also proved from the sworn testimony of PW1 and the statement of Yadav Lal, eye witness PW2 and statement of Dr.
H.S.Kahlon, PW3.
Rani Sarita 2014.02.25 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.74 of 1992 (O&M) -3- On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that in this case, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have colluded with the petitioner to admit the accident.
He has further argued that in this case, petitioner did not lodge any FIR nor there is anything on the file to show even DDR was lodged with the police.
In this way, the petitioner had not put forward any version before the police, which could be investigated and established.
His conduct not to report the matter to the police goes to show that he has put forward a false claim in collusion with respondent Nos.1 and 2.
It has been further argued that even the medical evidence of Dr.
H.S.Khalon shows that the accident did not take place as claimed.
I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully.
FiRs.of all, it is to be noted that in this case, petitioner has not lodged any FIR regarding the accident, in which he lost his right hand.
The story put forward by the petitioner is that he was standing near the truck with his back towards it and driver of the truck without giving any signal or horn reversed the truck and struck him.
As the result of which, he fell down and received multiple injuries.
If story is accepted from this face, it would mean that when he was hit from back by the truck, he would have fallen with his face towards the earth and would have received injuries on the front part of the body.
However, the statement of Dr.
H.S.Khanlon, PW3 shows that there was only crush injury on the right hand of the petitioner.
There was no other injury reported by the doctor.
The Tribunal has taken the Rani Sarita view that it is not understood how the right hand arm was crushed as 2014.02.25 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.74 of 1992 (O&M) -4- a result of fall of the petitioner.
He did not receive any injury on the other part of the body.
The Tribunal has also observed that in the natural course, if the accident took place in the manner narrated by the petitioner, then he would have suffered injuries on the various parts of the body and not only on the arm as suggested by him nor his hand will be crushed under the truck as claimed by him.
Though, the petitioner has stated his claim, which from this face is not acceptable, but his eye witness Yadav Lal has also not stated the manner of the accident.
He merely stated while appearing as PW2 that the accident of Ram Tapsya took place on 7.9.1989 but he did not state the nature of the accident nor he stated as to what happened in the accident.
It being so, this Court is of the view that claim of the accident, as put forward by the petitioner was rightly disbelieved by the Tribunal.
It appears that owner and the driver of the truck have colluded with the petitioner to get easy money from the Insurance Company by admitting the claim of the petitioner.
If such a tragedy had happened with the petitioner, there was no reason for the petitioner to spare respondent Nos.1 and 2 by not reporting the matter to the police.
As such, I don't find any merit in the appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(KULDIP SINGH) February 19, 2014 JUDGE sarita Rani Sarita 2014.02.25 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh