Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 148 (PNJ)

Nitish Kumar (Minor) v. Naresh Pal

2013-02-07

M.Jeyapaul

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.(Oral) - C.M. No.3231-CII of 2011 1. There is a delay of 1 day in preferring the appeal. 2. For the reasons set out in the application, the delay is condoned and the application is allowed. FAO No.1244 of 2011 3. The injured minor Naresh Kumar who received a crush injury in the accident has preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition on the ground that the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR02B-0751 was not established by the claimants. 4. The Tribunal having thoroughly analyzed in proper perspective came to a decision that the subject vehicle bearing registration No.HR02B-0751 was planted for the purpose of receiving compensation from the insurer of the said vehicle. The Tribunal having adverted to the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the claimant has not come out with real facts before the Court. Infact he has chosen to suppress the materials in order to claim compensation against the insured vehicle which was not involved in the accident. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal had not properly analyzed the evidence of PW6 Jai Singh who was one of the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The evidence of Jai Singh would go to show that vehicle owned by 2nd respondent and driven by the 1st respondent was involved in the accident. It is his further submission that the Tribunal has blown out of proportion the inadvertent mistake crept in the first information report as regards the registration number of the vehicle. Therefore, it is his submission that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition filed by the injured who sustained 70% of disability. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the driver and owner as well as the insurance company would submit that the Tribunal having properly weighed the evidence on record rejected the claim on the ground that the subject vehicle was purposely planted for the purpose of making the claim. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the occurrence took place on 10.3.2008 at 3.00 p.m. The first information report was lodged only on 12.3.2010 at 3.00 p.m. The involvement of the tractor bearing registration No.HR02A-2328 was specifically referred to in the first information report as the vehicle which actually caused the accident. 8. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the occurrence took place on 10.3.2008 at 3.00 p.m. The first information report was lodged only on 12.3.2010 at 3.00 p.m. The involvement of the tractor bearing registration No.HR02A-2328 was specifically referred to in the first information report as the vehicle which actually caused the accident. 8. Firstly, the first informant who had taken two days for registering the case would not have given a wrong number of the vehicle involved in the accident. Secondly, there is no resemblance between the registration number of the vehicle referred to in the first information report and the registration number of the vehicle furnished in the claim petition. Now it is projected that the vehicle bearing registration No.HR03B-0751 alone was involved in the accident. 9. It is the case of the claimant that he was taken to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the discharge summary of the reputed hospital which would definitely throw light on the cause of the injury sustained by the appellant was not purposely produced. 10. PW2 Dr. Rajnish Mehta has infact come out with a damaging version that the claimant was admitted to Kohli Hospital for treatment on the allegation that the claimant sustained injury while he was playing. Whereas, the claimant has come out with a totally different version that the subject tractor dashed him when he was in the process of easing out. 11. PW6 Jai Singh the alleged eye witness has come out with a very strange version. He would depose that the involvement of the subject vehicle bearing registration No.HR03B-0751 was informed to him by a stranger. He could not disclose who actually was that stranger who supplied the vital information after the lodgement of the first information report. To top it all, he would further depose that the said stranger also was not present at the time when the accident took place. Therefore, the evidence of PW6 cannot be seriously considered. 12. The insurance company had taken efforts to examine RW1 Geeta who was the owner of the tractor bearing registration No.HR03A- 2328 which was originally referred in the first information report. She feigned ignorance of any policy taken for the said vehicle at the time when the accident took place. Therefore, the evidence of PW6 cannot be seriously considered. 12. The insurance company had taken efforts to examine RW1 Geeta who was the owner of the tractor bearing registration No.HR03A- 2328 which was originally referred in the first information report. She feigned ignorance of any policy taken for the said vehicle at the time when the accident took place. It is in evidence that the 2nd respondent Raj Kumar is none other than the son-in-law of said Geeta. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, there is every possibility of swapping the vehicle on account of the fact that the vehicle which was originally referred to in the first information report was not insured and the vehicle owned by respondent No.2 who is none other than the son-in-law of RW1 was insured with the 3rd respondent. 13. Every delay in lodging the first information report would not falsify the accident described in the first information report. But in the instant case even after some delay, the first information report has been given with a totally different vehicle number. Now the claimant has conveniently come out with a vehicle number to suit his convenience. 14. In my view, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim as it was not established that the vehicle owned by 2nd respondent was involved in the accident. 15. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------