Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1576
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
Vinod Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Chandu Lal and others – Respondents
FAO No. 5114 & 5115 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 07-12-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Jitender K. Sehrawat, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Neha Awasthi, Advocate for Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate
In order to claim compensation for a motor vehicle accident, the claimant must provide sufficient evidence linking the vehicle to the accident.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166 - The court referred to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with the liability to pay compensation in case of death or permanent disablement due to a motor vehicle accident. The court emphasized the requirement of proving the involvement of the vehicle in the accident in order to claim compensation.
Fact of the Case:
Two claimants filed petitions seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. The accident involved a Tata Pickup driven by the respondent. The claim petitions were dismissed by the Tribunal due to lack of evidence linking the vehicle to the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision, stating that the FIR was lodged with a delay and the injured claimants were unable to provide details of the vehicle as the driver had fled. The court noted that the involvement of the vehicle had not been proven and upheld the dismissal of the claim petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that in order to claim compensation for a motor vehicle accident, the claimant must provide sufficient evidence linking the vehicle to the accident. In this case, the claimants failed to do so, resulting in the dismissal of their petitions.
Result: Both appeals were dismissed.
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. These are two appeals filed by the claimants aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim petitions. I propose to deal with both the cases together as they arise out of the common accident.
2. Few facts need to be detailed first. Vinod Kumar Jain and Billu @ Bijender were going on a motorcycle on 18.05.2008 from Narnaul to Singhana. They met with an accident at about 4/4:30 PM near Mohanpur turn. The allegations were that a Tata Pickup driven by Chandu Lal respondent no.1 came at a high speed and hit them from behind. Both the riders sustained injuries. The FIR was registered after two days on 20.05.2008.
3. Both the injured filed claim petitions seeking compensation. All the respondents denied the involvement of the vehicle.
4. Both the claim petitions were dismissed as the Tribunal noted that the FIR was against a unknown vehicle and unknown driver. It also noted that the injured could not even give the make or the colour of the vehicle and elaborately dealt with the argument led by their counsel in para 20.
5. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and I am unable to concur with this view. The FIR was against a unknown vehicle and unknown driver. The FIR was lodged with a delay. Both the injured had made a statement in the cross-examination that they could not note the details of the vehicle as the driver had fled away. The police had filed a un-traced report. The involvement of the vehicle had not been proved, therefore, the petitions were rightly dismissed. There is no reason to take a different view.
6. Both the appeals are dismissed.
