Harbans Lal Khanna vs Rajinder Singh Sodhi

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This is claimant''s appeal against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala dated 31.5.1984 vide which it had dismissed the claim petition.

The challenge to the award is that the Tribunal had wrongly held that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter No. HYA 5478 by Rajinder Singh, respondent No. 1.

I have perused the case file and considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties.

The material issue before the Tribunal was whether the accident in which the claimant sustained injuries, had taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the scooterist Rajinder Singh, respondent No. 1.

The case of the claimant is that the scooterist Rajinder Singh after overtaking a car which was going ahead of him, had struck against his moped. As a result, he had fallen on the road and sustained injuries.

On the other hand, the case of Rajinder Singh, respondent No. 1 is that the accident had taken place due to the fault of the claimant himself as when he tried to overtake the car and his scooter, the claimant lost control of his moped and as a result thereof, his moped fell down on the road and he sustained injuries.

In order to prove his case, the claimant had examined Kuljit Singh Sahni (PW-1) besides himself appearing as PW-2. Kuljit Singh Sahni (PW-1), who is alleged to have witnessed the occurrence, had stated that the car was a bit behind the scooter when the accident had taken place. In view of this admission in cross-examination, the story that the accident had taken place after the scooterist had overtaken, the car stands falsified. On further perusal of cross-examination of this witness, it is observed that he had contradicted himself when he stated that after overtaking the car, the scooterist had come to the extreme right when for the first time he had noticed him. Thus the testimony of this witness is not worthy of credence who is blowing hot and cold in the same breath. The claimant while appearing as PW-2 had himself admitted in clear terms that actually he did not notice the scooter coming from the opposite side. In the light of this admission of the claimant, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that it was Rajinder Singh, respondent No. 1, who was driving his scooter rashly and negligently. The claimant further admitted that he had noticed the car only after the impact with the scooter. I am of the considered view that the claimant failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence on record to prove that the accident had taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving of Rajinder Singh, respondent No. 1. In fact, the claimant, injured himself, did not know as to how the alleged accident had occurred, rather from the evidence on record as well as the stand taken by respondent No. 1, this Court had reached the conclusion that when the claimant, who is an old aged person, made an attempt to overtake the car, he lost control on this moped and as a result, his moped struck against the scooter. He fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Thus, the Tribunal had not erred in holding that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter No. HYA 5478 by Rajinder Singh, respondent No. 1. Thus the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on this material issue does not call for any interference and the same is affirmed.

From the medical evidence on record, it will be seen that the claimant had suffered five injuries in the alleged accident. They were all simple in nature and none of them was found serious by Dr. R. Anand (PW-5), who had medically examined the claimant on 10-8-1982. There was fracture on eighth rib on left side which was not curable by plaster and it was to heal with the passage of time. According to this Doctor, with that type of fracture in one rib, one can easily attend to his normal duties. Neither any serious injury was suffered by the claimant, nor he had suffered any pecuniary loss for not attending his clinic. Therefore, it was rightly held by the Tribunal that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation.

The next plea of the claimant was that the Tribunal should have granted medical expenses as he had spent Rs. 10000/- to 12000/- on his treatment. The claimant failed to produce any receipt or documentary evidence in order to substantiate his claim. In the copy of MLR Ex. PB only date of admission is given and the date of discharge is not incorporated. Dr. S.K. Gupta while appearing as PW-4 had clearly stated that no charges were paid by the patient who was admitted in the general ward of the hospital except purchasing some medicines. In the absence of any proof, the claim of the claimant was rightly rejected by the Tribunal.

I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the well reasoned findings arrived at by the Tribunal on all the issues and the same do not call for any interference. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.