(205) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.339 of 1997 Date of decision: 16.7.2014 Mahender Singh ….Appellant Versus Satbir Singh ….
Respondent Present: Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant.
None for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for respondent No.4- Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
*** S.S.Saron, J.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant Mahender Singh against the judgment and award dated 21.9.1996 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (‘Tribunal’ – for short).Mahender Singh, appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’ – for short) stating that he was aged 28 years and employed in the Market Committee, Jui, District Bhiwani.
He was earning Rs.2000/- per month.
He claimed compensation of Rs.3 lacs on account of the motor vehicle accident that had occurred on 18.2.1992 at about 11.00 a.m.The appellant was standing at Kairu Chowk and waiting for a bus for going to Jui.
Meanwhile, the offending four-wheeler No.HR16 – 3949 with AMIT KHANCHI201408.05 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.339 of 1997 [2].some passengers reached there.
The claimant-appellant and some other passengers there boarded the same.
According to the claimant-appellant, the four-wheeler HR16 – 3949 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Satbir Singh (respondent No.1).It was already loaded with sand and crusher material.
After the four-wheeler had covered 3 kMs.it over-turned.
As a result of the accident, the appellant had broken his upper right leg.
He was taken to the General Hospital, Bhiwani.
FIR No.62 dated 18.2.1992 was also got registered at Police Station Tosham.
The claimant/appellant by way of an application amended his petition and instead of the registration number of the four-wheeler which was mentioned as HR16 – 3949, he prayed for amendment to that of HR16 - 4393.
The respondents namely Satbir Singh, driver of the four- wheeler HR16 - 4393 (respondent No.1).Man Singh, registered owner of the four-wheeler HR16 - 4393 (respondent No.2).Jai Singh, owner of four-wheeler HR16 – 4393 (respondent No.3) and United India Insurance Company Limited (respondent No.4) contested the petition.
Separate written statements were filed.
Satbir Singh, driver of the four-wheeler HR16 - 4393 (respondent No.1) denied that any such accident had occurred with his four- wheeler No.HR16 – 4393.
He submitted that the appellant had never travelled in their four-wheeler.
Man Singh (respondent No.2) who was substituted and was owner of four-wheeler No.HR16 – 4393 stated that he had sold the said vehicle to one Jai Singh (respondent No.3) son of Kunja Ram.
Jai Singh (respondent No.3) also denied the accident of the said four-wheeler in which the AMIT KHANCHI claimant/appellant was a passenger.
He, however, pleaded that the 2014.08.05 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.339 of 1997 [3].four-wheeler that he purchased from Man Singh (respondent No.2) was insured.
The United India Insurance Company Limited (respondent No.4) stated that the offending four-wheeler was not insured with them.
It was alleged that the claimant/appellant in collusion with Satbir Singh and Man Singh (respondents No.1 and 2 respectively) had filed the claim petition to get compensation.
It was also mentioned that in the FIR the number of the offending vehicle was mentioned as HR16 - 3940.
The said vehicle in any case was also not insured with the United India Insurance Company LTD.(respondent No.4).On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1.
Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of four-wheeler No.HR16 – 4393 by respondent No.1 Satbir Singh and the petitioner (appellant) sustained injuries as alleged?.
OPP2 Whether the petitioner (appellant) is entitled to compensation and if so from whom as alleged?.
OPP.
3.
Relief.
The learned Tribunal noticed that the claimant/appellant in his claim petition initially in the original claim pleaded that he was travelling in four-wheeler No.HR16 – 3940.
Then he got the registration number amended to that of HR16 – 4393.
The accident by the said four-wheeler was denied by its driver Satbir Singh (respondent No.1) and son Jai Singh (respondent No.3).The appellant appeared as PW-3 and he inter alia stated that he was travelling in four-wheeler No.HR16 – 4393 which due to rash and AMIT KHANCHI negligent driving was involved in an accident as a result of which he 2014.08.05 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.339 of 1997 [4].suffered fracture in his right leg.
He had remained in the hospital.
In cross-examination by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, he stated that other persons travelling in the four- wheeler also suffered injuries but he could not say whether they got treatment or not.
It is stated that the number of the four-wheeler was given by him as HR16 - 3940.
He stated that he gave the number of the four-wheeler as HR16 – 4393 to the police as well as his counsel.
He denied the suggestion that he had got written the registration number of the four-wheeler as HR16 – 4393 in the FIR.
The driver of the four-wheeler with registration number HR16 – 4393 was not facing criminal trial arising from the said accident.
The learned Tribunal found that from the perusal of the statement of the claimant/appellant, it was apparent that he himself was not sure as to which four-wheeler was involved in the accident.
He had denied the suggestion that he got written the number of the four- wheeler as HR16 – 3940 in the FIR, but he admitted the same in cross-examination put by respondent No.2.
No other passenger had been examined.
In the FIR he gave the number of the four- wheeler as HR16 – 3940.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show as to how the discrepant evidence that has been led could be reconciled so as to clearly establish as to which of the four-wheeler was involved in the accident in which the claimant/appellant is stated to have suffered injuries.
Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the findings and conclusions reached at by the learned Tribunal as the appellant has been unable to prove the offending vehicle in which he suffered injuries as a result of the AMIT KHANCHI accident.
2014.08.05 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.339 of 1997 [5].In the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
16.7.2014 (S.S.Saron) amit Judge AMIT KHANCHI201408.05 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh