Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Parkash vs Joginder Singh & Ors on 24 November, 2023
FAO-1023-1996 2023:PHHC:150305 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
242
FAO-1023-1996
Date of decision : 24.11.2023
Ved Parkash .....Appellant
Versus
Joginder Singh and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present : Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Vini Mahajan, Advocate for
Mr. Devender Arya, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated
22.11.1995 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for
short 'the Tribunal') whereby the claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. This is a reconstructed case, as the original file was burnt in the
fire that broke out in the concerned branch in the year 2011. Since the case
is pending for the last more than 25 years, the counsel for the parties have no
objection, in case the same is decided on the basis of available record.
3. Brief facts are that on 17.11.1994 the appellant was going from
his village Beri towards Mohindergarh. When he reached near Rao Tulla
Chowk, a Truck bearing registration No.HR-35-268, driven by respondent
No.1 in a rash and negligent manner was coming from the side of Narnaul
and struck against the appellant. As a result of which, he sustained injuries
authenticity of this order/judgment
including fracture on his left leg. Thereafter, he had filed the claim petition
claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was dismissed by
the Tribunal vide judgment dated 22.11.1995. Aggrieved against the said
judgment, the instant appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal had wrongly
dismissed the claim petition of the appellant by relying only upon the
statement of respondent No.1-Joginder Singh and the delay in lodging of
FIR, which was duly explained. From the medical record, it is apparent that
he had suffered injuries due to the vehicular accident. The story made by
respondent No.1 and 2, driver and owner, respectively, is highly improbable
and not trust-wrothy. Thus, prays for allowing the present appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3
vehemently opposed and submitted that the Tribunal had rightly dismissed
the claim petition filed by the appellant after thoroughly considering the
evidence on record. The alleged accident took place on 17.11.1994,
however, an FIR was lodged on 12.01.1995 i.e. after an unreasonable delay
of about 55 days, which has not been explained. Therefore, the present
appeal may be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
record.
7. It would be apposite to refer to the findings of the Tribunal as
regards the accident, which read thus:
"On careful appraisal of the evidence led by both the
sides, I am of the considered opinion that the testimony
of Ved, Parkash, petitioner, PW4 and Lila Ram PW5,
narrating about the manner of the accident, is not worthy
of credence. Ved Parkash, petitioner, is an interested
witness. The accident in question, as alleged by him, had
taken place on 17.11.1994. Strangely enough, he has
lodged the report with the police on 12.1.1995 i.e. after
authenticity of this order/judgment
the lapse of about 55 days. No convincing explanation
has come forward for lodging the report at such a belated
stage. The plea taken by Ved Parkash, petitioner, that
Hari Singh, father of Joginder Singh, respondent No.1,
had assured him to compensate him for the injuries
sustained by him and so he did not lodge the report
earlier and lateron when he had refused to compensate
him, he had lodged the report with the police and
ultimately filed this claim petition, does not inspire any
confidence. It does not appeal that he would have waited
for about two months for lodging the report. He could
have lodged the report promptly, but he did not do so and
as such his belated version, now given by him, seems to
be the result of manipulation. It is pertinent to mention
here that after filing of the challan against Joginder
Singh, respondent No.1, in the court, an inquiry had been
conducted against Shish Pal Singh, SI/SHO, Police
Station, Mohindergarh, who had submitted a false
challan against Joginder Singh, respondent No.1. The
said inquiry was conducted by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Mohindergarh. During the
inquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mohindergarh had found the case to be false. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Mohindergarh, had given a
categorical finding that no accident had taken place
within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Mohindergarh.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mohindergarh, has
also recommended departmental enquiry against Shish
Pal Singh, SI/SHO, Police Station, Mohindergarh. These
facts are quite evident from the testimony of RW1, Nafe
Singh, Asstt. Complaint Clerk, of the office of the
Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, who has also proved
the enquiry report, the copy of which is Ex.R5 on the
record. The fact that the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Mohindergarh, on an inquiry, had found that no accident
had taken place within the jurisdiction of Police Station,
Mohindergarh, also lends credence to the version of the
respondents that in fact, no accident had taken place on
17.11.1,1994, near Rao Tula Chowk, Mohindergarh.
Under such circumstances, the ... given by Joginder
Singh, respondent No.1, assumes importance and appears
to be correct."
8. From bare perusal of the aforesaid, it reveals that the
claimant-appellant had concocted the case only to obtain compensation from
the Insurance company. This falsity of the claim becomes more apparent
from the statement of PW5 Lila Ram, who had stated that he had not seen
any accident on 17.11.1994. Further, PW3 Dr.Dinesh Podar, deposed that
authenticity of this order/judgment
when Ved Parkash, appellant, was admitted on 17.11.1994 in the General
Hospital, Narnaul, he at that time, already had a temporary plaster,
suggesting of the fact that he had been injured prior to 17.11.1994. There
was no cogent and convincing explanation given by the appellant for
lodging the FIR after a delay of 55 days of the alleged accident.
9. Fraud vitiates every solemn act as observed in Ram Chandra
Singh vs. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319, by Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned judgment dated 22.11.1995 passed by the
Tribunal. Consequently, the present appeal, being bereft of merit, is hereby
dismissed.
24.11.2023 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
Hemant JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
authenticity of this order/judgment
