Dismissed

Tahir v. Naveen Sharma and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Apr 2023FAO/2059/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by an injured claimant against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order dismissing his compensation claim. The court found significant discrepancies in the appellant's evidence, including delayed FIR registration, inconsistencies in medical records, and failure to prove the accident caused his injuries.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with no interference in the impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Tahir Vs Naveen Sharma and Another — Medical Negligence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:060873 Page 1 of 4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 257 FAO-2059-2020 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.04.2023

Tahir

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Naveen Sharma & Another

¶7

...Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

¶9

¶10

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶11

Present appeal has been filed by the injured/claimant against dismissal of his claim pe""on by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat (hereina'er referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 21.11.2019 passed in MACP/465/2018 filed under Sec"on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereina'er referred to as “the Act”).

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia submits:

¶13

a) that learned Tribunal is in error in dismissing his claim pe""on as it is sufficiently borne out from the record that appellant was grievously injured in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 14.07.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registra"on No.HR-27C-9912 being driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2;

¶14

b) that in pursuance to the accident in ques"on, the

¶15

appellant had even lodged FIR No.159 dated 05.08.2018 under Sec"ons 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Sta"on Bahin;

¶16

SUNENA 2023.05.02 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

2023:PHHC:060873 Page 2 of 4

¶18

c) that the appellant “... has suffered mul�ple and

¶19

grievous injuries in the accident in ques�on and lost his original energy and stamina and working capacity and he is not able to even stand and walk independently and his one eye also damaged in the said accident and he became permanent disabled” ;

¶20

d) that the appellant had led sufficient evidence i.e. disability cer"ficate (Exhibit PW1/A) and other material documents, however, the same have not been considered by the learned Tribunal.

¶21

No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶23

Perusal of record of the case shows that the accident in present case is stated to have occurred on 14.07.2018 at about 8-9 O’clock. However, FIR has been registered by the appellant a'er a delay of 22 days on 05.08.2018. Moreover, the appellant as PW4 in his cross examina"on has stated that the police had recorded his statement on 14.07.2018 and registra"on number of the offending vehicle was disclosed to the police on the very same day. However, Learned Tribunal has returned the finding that no such statement is on record, and the appellant even failed to examine the concerned Inves"ga"ng Officer of the case to prove that his statement was actually recorded on 14.07.2018.

¶24

Further, as per complaint (Exhibit P2), the complainant had disclosed name of the driver and registra"on number of the offending vehicle to the police on 05.08.2018 in pursuance to which the

¶25

SUNENA 2023.05.02 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

2023:PHHC:060873 Page 3 of 4

¶27

police had issued no"ce (Exhibit P13) under Sec"on 133 of the Act to the owner of the offending vehicle. It has further been men"oned in the complaint that complainant-Jaan Mohammad had stated that he took the appellant to the hospital a'er the accident. However, in the MLR of the appellant, he was shown to have been accompanied by one Mohammad Sakir and presence of complainant-Jaan Mohammad was not recorded in the MLR.

¶28

Third discrepancy in the version put forth by the appellant is that in the complaint it has been alleged that driver of the offending vehicle hit motorcycle of the appellant while the appellant’s motorcycle was parked. However, a perusal of rough site plan shows that the alleged accident had taken place on the road at Point-A which is le' side of Punhana-Kot road.

¶29

Further, as per complainant (PW3), it has been alleged that the alleged offending vehicle as well as motorcycle of the appellant were damaged in the accident in ques"on. However, no mechanical examina"on report of either of the motorcycles has been placed on record. Even the Inves"ga"ng Officer of the case has not been examined by the appellant and even respondent No.1 has not stepped into the witness box which indicates possible collusion between the appellant and respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to give

¶30

any explana"on whatsoever for any of the above lacunae in his case. Accordingly, in my view, learned Tribunal has correctly held that the appellant had failed to prove that he had sustained injuries in a roadside

¶31

SUNENA 2023.05.02 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

2023:PHHC:060873 Page 4 of 4

¶33

accident that took place on 14.07.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registra"on No.HR-27C-9912 being driven and owned by respondent No.1.

¶34

In view of above discussions, I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award. Present appeal accordingly stands dismissed.

¶35

Pending applica"on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

¶36

25.04.2023 Sunena

¶37

(Nidhi Gupta) Judge

¶38

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶39

SUNENA 2023.05.02 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Tahir v. Naveen Sharma and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tahir v. Naveen Sharma and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Kumar and Anr. Vs Kharaiti Lal

Pooja @ Shivangi Goyal (Shivangi Garg) Vs Raman Garg @ Ramandeep Garg

Nisha Vs Jagdeep Kumar

Icici Bank Vs Harcharan Singh and Anr.

Sukhwant Kaur Vs Santokh Singh and Ors.

Sahil Kumar & Anr. Vs Hari Om & Ors.