AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant challenging the award dated 08.04.2005, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed on account of injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident dated 24.04.2002, involving a Maruti car bearing registration No. HR-51-C-0059, was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that on 24.04.2002, while traveling from Saharanpur to Kalka in a Maruti car bearing registration No. HR-15-C-0059, he met with an accident near Village Billa where Respondent No. 1, while driving at an excessive speed, lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a bridge railing. The impact resulted in multiple grievous injuries to the appellant, culminating in 20% permanent physical impairment on his left arm, as deposed by PW-1 Dr. Umesh Modi. The claim was contested by the Respondent-Insurance Company on the grounds of collusion and fabrication. While evaluating the evidence, the learned Tribunal was observed that in DDR No. 11, recorded immediately after the incident, the time of the accident was unequivocally mentioned as 04:00 AM, which stood in stark contradiction to the 01:00 AM version subsequently introduced during the trial to justify a theory of negligence. The learned Tribunal notices that there is a close familial relationship between the appellant and Respondent No. 1 (maternal uncle and nephew), found the claim to be a result of collusion rather than genuine negligence. Further it was noted that the driver’s testimony who shifted from a "no fault" stance in the police record to an admission of negligence in court. Hence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Consequently, the appellant was held not entitled to any compensation and was burdened with costs of ₹530/-.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned award dated 08.04.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula was wholly illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside, as the same had been rendered in complete disregard of the material evidence available on record. Further, it was submitted that the learned Tribunal had erroneously ignored the cogent and consistent testimony of the appellant (PW-2), who had specifically deposed on oath that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-Jai Parkash, and instead had wrongly relied upon a self-serving DDR recorded on the statement of the said respondent himself, which could not have been made the basis to discard the claim, thereby vitiating the findings on Issue No.1; it was further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate Issues No. 2 and 3, which were crucial for the determination of just compensation, thereby rendering the impugned award legally unsustainable. It was further submitted that the appellant, aged 46 years at the time of the accident, had sustained grievous injuries to his right arm and had incurred medical expenses to the tune of ₹50,000/- towards his treatment. The medical evidence, as proved through the testimony of Dr. M. S. Gupta, establishes that the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20%. It was also brought on record that, on account of the said injuries and prolonged treatment, the appellant remained out of work for a considerable period, thereby suffering both physical and financial hardship. Reliance in this regard was placed upon Ram Murti and others v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Civil Appeal No.7143 of 2022 decided on 11.10.2022 (2022 (4) TAC 738 (SC): 2023 ACJ 631), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had recognized entitlement to compensation under beneficial provisions even in cases where negligence was not strictly proved, as also upon Vijay Kumar Goyal v. Pankaj Kumar and another, FAO No.4708 of 2004 decided on 13.08.2024, to contend that findings must be