The court ruled that inconsistent testimonies in criminal and civil proceedings undermine the credibility of the claimant, leading to dismissal of the compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

Ms. Amarjot Bhatti, J.

The appellant - National Insurance Company Limited has filed appeal bearing FAO No. 3659 of 2018 for setting aside the impugned Award dated 23.02.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, whereas, the appellant/claimant - Bajinder Singh has filed the appeal bearing FAO No. 4076 of 2019 for modification and enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as referred above. Both these appeals have arisen out of the same Award dated 23.02.2018, therefore, the appeals are taken up together for disposal.

2. The facts of the case are that Bajinder Singh had filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- along with interest @18% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. It was submitted by the injured/claimant that at the time of accident, he was 30 years old and was serving in Indian Army. He was drawing monthly income of Rs. 35,000/- per month. On 30.11.2010, the injured/claimant along with one Prabhjot Singh and Jaswinder Singh were going to Village Brahmpur from their village on motorcycle bearing Registration No. HP- 12-C-7905, which was being driven by the injured/claimant with proper care and caution. When they reached in the area of Village Ajouli, then at about 12:30 pm, a car bearing Registration No. HP-24-A-7578 came from behind at a high speed, without blowing horn and hit the motorcycle due to which the injured along with said persons fell down on the road and received multiple grievous injuries. The said car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver i.e. respondent No. 1. The injured was firstly taken to BBMB Nangal from where the doctor referred him to Command Hospital, Panchkula. Regarding this accident, FIR No. 143 dated 03.12.2010 under Section 279, 337, 338, 427 of I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Nangal, against respondent No. 1. Hence, the claim petition.

3. The claim petition was contested by all the respondents. In the separate written statements filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, preliminary objection regarding maintainability was taken. Both the answering respondents have denied the accident as well as the involvement of vehicle in question. It was further submitted that the name of the owner of vehicle in question was Daryhodhan Singh s/o Sh. Krishan Singh. The insurer of the vehicle in question was National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Hamirpur, District Hamirpur (HP). It was further alleged that the story put forth by the claimant was false, fabricated, concocted and self-contradictory. Hence, it was prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed with costs.

4. The Insurance Company - respondent No. 3 also filed separate written statement taking the stand that claim petition was not maintainable in the present form. It was alleged that claimant has filed the claim petition in connivance with respondents No. 1 and 2 in order to get illegal compensation from the answering respondent. The driver of the offending car was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident. He was not having the Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate and Insurance at the time of alleged accident. Therefore, the answering respondent was not liable to pay compensation. While denying remaining averments, it was prayed that the claim petition filed by the injured/claimant may be dismissed qua the answering respondent - Insurance Company.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 08.02.2017 :-

(1) Whether Bajinder Singh received injuries in motor vehicular accident which took place on 30.11.2010 at about 12:30 pm in the area of village Ajouli, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-24-A-7578 being driven by respondent No. 1? OPP

(2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as prayed for? OPP

(3) Whether the respondents were not havi