21.02.2025 Harish Miglan glani & Others v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
Page 1 of 6 6 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 rma Bharat Verma FAO-5245-2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.02.2025 Harish Miglan glani & Others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocat for the appellant. ocate ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) cate Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advoca for respondent No.2. vocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present appeal has been f en filed by the injured-claimant against the A e Award dated 26.09.2009 passed ssed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurg urgaon, whereby claim petition be n bearing MACT Case No.236 of 29.07.2008 fil 8 filed by the appellant under Se r Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to d to as “the Act”), has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the the appellant submits that the claim petition ition of the appellant has been dis dismissed only on the ground that there wa was delay in registration of the D e DDR. It is submitted that the accident had ad occurred on 13.06.2008 at ab t about 10:30 pm; whereas the DDR No.15 da 5 dated 22.06.2008 was registered ered at Police Station Sector 5, Gurugram on on the statement of the appella ellant. It is submitted that the SUNENA 2025.02.25 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) appellant was was unable to register the said DD d DDR earlier as he was injured and admitted ime. ted in hospital during the said time. 3. It is further submitted ed that the ld. Tribunal has Page 2 of 6 6 (cid:1) dismissed the the claim petition also on the groun round that the injuries sustained by the appell pellant were not proven to have ave been caused by use of the vehicle in que
Legal Reasoning
question. It is contended that the s he said finding of the Tribunal is contrary to th o the record. It is also argued that that as per Section 163A of the Act, all that w at was required was for the appella ellant was to prove that he had suffered injuri njuries due to the accident arising o ing out of the use of the alleged offending vehi vehicle. It is accordingly prayed that that the impugned Award be set aside. 4. Ld. Counsel for responden ndent no.2/ Insurance Company assisted by l y ld. counsel for respondent no. no.1/driver and owner of the alleged offend fending vehicle, resist the claim of of the appellant by contending that no accide ccident had occurred out of the u he use of the alleged offending vehicle. 5. 6. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned co counsel for the parties and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 7. The case set out by the ap e appellant in the claim petition is that on 13.0 13.06.2008 at about 10.30 PM the the appellant (aged 30 years, Air Conditioner M Mechanic earning Rs. 3000 per m er month) was traveling in TATA Indica Car bea bearing registration no. HR-26-Q- -4513 (hereinafter referred to SUNENA 2025.02.25 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) as ‘the alleged eged offending vehicle’), which was was being driven by respondent Page 3 of 6 6 (cid:1) no. 1. When the alleged offending vehicle was was passing Apne Enclave, all of a sudden a cy a cyclist came in between the road oad. The respondent no. 1 tried to save the cyc e cyclist. In that process, all of a sud sudden a vehicle came from the opposite side ide with high flashlight as a result o ult of which their vehicle hit with the divider of r of the road resulting into injurie juries to petitioner. It is further pleaded in the the claim petition that the matter atter was reported to the police and DDR No. 1 No. 15 dated 22.06.2008 was regist gistered at Police Station Sector 5, Gurgaon. It was accordingly alleged that that the claimant had suffered injuries on ac n account of use of the offending ding vehicle -which was being driven and ow owned by respondent no. 1, and in d insured with respondent no.2. Accordingly, th ly, the appellant had claimed compe mpensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 8. To prove the issue in han hand, the claimant appeared in the witness b ss box as PW5 and filed affidav idavit Ex. PW5/A in which he reiterated the the averments made in the clai claim petition, stating that on 13.06.2008 ar 8 around 10.30 PM when he along ong with Harish, respondent no. 1 was travelin veling in TATA Indica car no. HR HR-26-Q-4513.They were going from Gurgaon aon to Railway Station, Gurgaon, w when all of a sudden, a cyclist appeared in fr in front of the car as a result of whi which the driver of the car tried to save the he cyclist but on account of ref reflecting of headlight of the oncoming veh vehicle, the car hit the divider of t of the road. His statement was recorded by t by the police of Sector 5, Gurgaon aon. After the accident, he was taken to Max ax Hospital, Gurgaon where he rem remained under treatment and SUNENA 2025.02.25 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 4 of 6 6 (cid:1) was discharge arged on 20.06.2008. In cross-exam xamination, he stated that after the accident h nt he became unconscious but driv driver of the car was conscious and the latter tter had not received any injury. H ry. He (Claimant) was not aware who had infor nformed the police about the accide ccident. He also deposed that he was not awar ware whether owner of the car h ar had intimated the insurance company abo about the accident. He admitted ted that he had gone to police station few da w days after the discharge from the the hospital along with his real brother. 9. However, the case of the the appellant is demolished by the written sta statement and evidence of respon spondent no.1/owner and driver of the alleged ged offending vehicle, with whom om the appellant was allegedly traveling at th at the time of accident. Responden ndent No.1 in his deposition as RW1 has tota totally denied the said accident. R t. Respondent no. 1 has totally denied travel avelling with the claimant in his his car at the time of alleged accident.Resp espondent No.1 further stated that that he had purchased the car in question on 2 n 23.11.2007, and the vehicle was was in his name, that he had not met with any any accident, and that his car was in as insured with respondent No.2 for the period riod from 26.06.2007 to 25.06.2008 2008. It was very rightly pointed out why RW1 RW1 that in case the accident h nt had occurred as alleged on 13.06.2008, th the respondent No.1 would then then have claimed insurance. He also stated tha d that he had not claimed any comp ompensation as no accident had, in fact, taken p ken place. Even the Police had neve ever come to him regarding the SUNENA 2025.02.25 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) accident. He fu He further deposed that the vehicle icle shown in photograph (Ex.R1 and Ex.R2) did ) did not belong to him. 10. Thus, the bald stateme ement of appellant was not Page 5 of 6 6 (cid:1) sufficient to e to establish his case that he had rec received injuries on account of use of vehicle hicle in question; and the same me was not proved by leading cogent and c nd convincing evidence as the p e person named by him i.e. respondent n t no. 1 with whom he was trave raveling, had totally denied the occurrence of of accident in the manner in whic which claimant had deposed. No doubt, a DDR DDR No. 15 dated 22.06.2008 (Exh (Exhibit P-31) was registered at Police Station tion Sector 5, Gurgaon by the appe ppellant regarding the accident. No doubt also also, that the said DDR was duly duly proved by PW4 Constable Harjinder Sing Singh. However, the DDRentry seem eems to be an afterthought, as it was made alm almost ten days after the acciden ident after the discharge of the appellant from from the hospital on 20.6.2008. Th The delay in the registration of the DDR, defin efinitely weakens the case of the a he appellant. This is especially so in view of the the fact that there is nothing on re n record/no medical evidence to indicate that hat during this time, the appella pellant was unfit to make the statement. Th Thus, the appellant was unable t ble to meet the requirement of Section 163-A A of the Act as he was unable to e to prove that the injuries were sustained due due to the use of vehicle of Respond pondent No. 1. 11. Ld. Counsel for the appel ppellant is unable to dispute or controvert the gs. t the above said facts and findings. SUNENA 2025.02.25 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 12. Before parting, it is also ne o necessary to point out that the Page 6 of 6 6 (cid:1) present appea ppeal is of the year 2010. Order sh r sheets reveal that the matter was adjourne urned at request of learned cou counsel for the appellant on 9.8.2011, 2.11 2.11.2011, 1.2.2012. Thereafter th er the appeal stood ‘Admitted’ vide order d r dated 19.3.2012. Since then th n the matter has again been adjourned eit either due to non-appearance o ce of or on request made by learned couns ounsel for the appellant on 29.9 29.9.2016, 4.8.2017, 19.9.2017, 27.10.2017, 14 14.11.2017, 8.5.2024. 13. 14. 21.02.2025 Sunena
Decision
In view of the above, prese resent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.02.25 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)