Ram Pal vs Kartar Singh

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant claimant against the impugned Award dated 12.03.1999, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, (for short, ''the Tribunal''). The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant as the appellant has successfully proved that the accident took place with the car of respondent No. 1.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the appellant has failed to prove the involvement of the car of the respondent in the accident, therefore, his claim has been rightly rejected.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

In the instant case, FIR No. 15 dated 13.01.1997, Ex. PA, under Sections 279, 337 IPC, was registered at P.S. Sohna, against the respondent. However, the same was cancelled as the police found that car bearing registration No. DNH-5093, was not involved in the accident Cancellation report, Ex. R-3, is placed on record. Moreover, the claimant did not produce his brother, Inder Singh, the alleged eye-witness of the occurrence. Said Inder Singh also did not appear before the police to prove the accident. As per RW 1, Constable Ashok Kumar, the FIR was cancelled as untraced on 07.04.1997, vide report Ex. R-3. From the evidence on record, no other view is possible. The findings on issue No. 1, are affirmed. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court feels that the appellant has failed to prove the factum of the accident as projected by him and thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected his claim petition.

Dismissed.