High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Siri Ram Sharma v. Chatar Singh & Ors - FAO-650-1992  RD-P&H 11139 (23 November 2006)
FAO NO.650 of 1992
DATE OF DECISION: November 8, 2006
Siri Ram Sharma
Chatar Singh and others
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3.
The claimant is appellant before this Court. He suffered injuries in an accident which occurred on April 7,1989. The claimant who was an employee of Hindustan Machine Tool Company, Pinjore was returning from the factory to his residence at Panchkula on the fateful day. When he reached near Madhumati Marg towards Panchkula, as per allegations in the claim petition, a truck was coming from the opposite direction. In the meanwhile, another truck No.HNE 520 also came from the opposite direction. According to the claimant, the driver was driving the truck rashly and negligently and in his attempt to overtake the other truck, without caring for the claimant and narrowness of the road at the site struck against the scooter of the claimant, as a result of which, the claimant fell down and received injuries. He was immediately taken to Hospital for treatment. The claimant further pleaded that on account of serious injuries suffered by him on his right thigh and the patella of right leg, he had to undergo surgery twice and had to remain on earned leave FAO NO.650 of 1992
from April 7, 1989 to July 24, 1989. He claimed that he had incurred expenses of Rs.15,000/- on his treatment and Rs.7,200/- for the repairs of his scooter. He also claimed that he had suffered a permanent disability.
The learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence available on the record, has recorded a finding that it could not be held that the accident in question had taken place on account of any rashness and negligence of the truck driver. The presence of PW3 Ved Parkash, who was produced as an eye witness has been dis-believed. It has been held by the Tribunal that since the aforesaid Ved Parkash, PW3 was a co-employee of the claimant, therefore, he had merely supported the claimant due to the aforesaid reason. However, the claimant was awarded an amount of Rs.12,000/- on account of permanent disability suffered by him on account of No Fault Liability.
The claimant has now approached this Court through the present appeal.
I have heard Shri S.S.Dinarpur, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Neeraj Khanna, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. The entire evidence produced by the claimant-appellant has also been taken into consideration by me.
After taking into consideration the evidence, I do not find any justification to hold that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous in any manner. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accident in question had taken place on account of Pag
FAO NO.650 of 1992
rashness and negligence of the truck driver. The claimant-appellant has also not produced any medical evidence to prove the medical expenses incurred by him. He has already been granted an amount of Rs.12,000/- for permanent disability suffered by him under No Fault Liability principle.
In view of the aforesaid fact, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
November 8, 2006 (Viney Mittal)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.