Judgment:
FAO-5760-2014(O&M) 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5760-2014(O&M) Date of decision : 11.08.2014 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited ..Appellant Versus Smt.Rekha Rani and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant.
REKHA MITTAL, J.
The present appeal has been directed against the award dated 01.02.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (in short 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation of Rs.8,65,000/- towards death of Deepak Kumar in a motor vehicle accident on 14.11.2011.
The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the award primarily on the ground that truck bearing registration No.HR-68-4188 Swaraj Mazda was falsely implicated to lodge a claim for grant of compensation.
It is argued with vehemence that Ashok Kumar son of Ram Saroop, the alleged eye witness to the occurrence is a procured witness as deceased Deepak Kumar is a nephew of said Ashok Kumar.
Another submission made by counsel is that FIR in this case was registered on 22.11.2011 in regard to the occurrence which allegedly took place on 14.11.2011.
The version given by Ashok Kumar that he shifted injured to the hospital gets suspicious in view of medical record DAVINDER KUMAR201408.22 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5760-2014(O&M) 2 maintained in Civil Hospital, Naraingarh wherein in the admission register, it is mentioned that Deepak was brought by one Harinder Singh son of Parkash Singh.
Ashok Kumar (PW1) and Nirmal Singh (PW2) father of the deceased had contradicted each other if Ashok Kumar had revealed particulars of the offending vehicle to Nirmal Singh when Ashok Kumar purportedly gave information to Nirmal Singh about the occurrence and sustaining of injuries by the victim.
I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
Deepak Kumar sustained injuries on 14.11.2011 and succumbed to those injuries on 21.11.2011.
The FiRs.Information Report was lodged with the police on 22.11.2011 at the behest of Ashok Kumar, the real brother of Nirmal Singh, father of the deceased.
Ashok Kumar has categorically deposed that on 14.11.2011 after shifting the injured to the hospital and informing his brother about the occurrence, who actually arrived in the hospital, he left for Jaipur as he was working as a driver on the car of one Jagdish Chander.
He has further deposed that in the hospital records at the time of admission of Deepak, neither he signed any paper nor revealed his particulars and vehicle number to the doctor.
He further stated that he informed father of the victim from his mobile number to the mobile number of the informant.
As Ashok Kumar has convincingly explained the reasons for his failure to lodge the FIR on the day of occurrence or till 22.11.2011, therefore, testimony of Ashok Kumar cannot be doubted merely because he did not lodge the FIR till 22.11.2011 or he happens to be the paternal uncle of the deceased.
During cross-examination of Ashok Kumar, there is no explanation sought with regard to the person whose name stands DAVINDER KUMAR201408.22 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5760-2014(O&M) 3 mentioned in the hospital records for bringing the injured-victim to the hospital.
The plea of the claimants and Ashok Kumar PW1 that Deepak Kumar sustained injuries in a road side accident finds corroboration from the entry in the records of Civil Hospital, Naraingarh.
The contradiction in the testimony of Ashok Kumar and Nirmal Singh pointed out by counsel for the appellants is not serious to dislodge evidence of Ashok Kumar.
Ashok Kumar and Nirmal Singh were examined before the Tribunal on 07.02.2013 and the contradiction aforesaid is sufficiently proportionate to the time gap elapsed between the occurrence and examination of the witnesses.
This apart, there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that owner of the alleged offending vehicle was known to the claimants to permit his vehicle being implicated in the crime or assisting the applicants to get compensation in the claim proceedings.
No other point has been raised.
In view of the above, finding no merit, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE August 11, 2014.
Davinder Kumar DAVINDER KUMAR201408.22 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document