High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Tarlochan Singh & Anr v. Joginder & Anr - FAO-5633-2005  RD-P&H 10357 (13 November 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: 15.9.2006
Tarlochan Singh and another
Joginder and another
CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh.
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Grover.
Present: Mr.C.L.Verma, Advocate,
for the appellants.
UMA NATH SINGH, J. (ORAL)
In this FAO by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, with 9 days' delay in refiling, against an award dated 30.7.2005 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, in RBT MACT No.33/2004, awarding a sum of Rs.80,000/- in an injury case where the claimant suffered puncture of lung and remained on ventilation in the hospital, learned counsel submitted that the vehicle was falsely involved, as there was no eye witness account of the accident, and only on the basis of a news item, the vehicle has been framed up.
We have carefully considered the submission of learned counsel and we do not find any force therein for the reason that the claimant was travelling in the auto rickshaw of appellant No.2 at the time of accident, soon after he was removed from ventilation in the hospital, he lodged a report with the SSP, Jalandhar, giving detailed description of the vehicle and the accident. Absence of an eye witness in the accident cases FAO No.5633 of 2005 (O&M) 2
would not make a claim case unbelievable when the claimant himself is the author of the complaint. The compensation amount is only Rs.80,000/-, whereas the medical bills are to the tune of Rs.66,000/-.
Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. 9 days' delay in refiling the appeal is condoned for the reasons given in the application. The appeal is dismissed in limine.
( UMA NATH SINGH )
September 15, 2006 ( MAHESH GROVER )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.