Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Ganesh Kumar vs Anil Kumar And Ors on 6 March, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:032665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
241 FAO-1804-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.03.2024
GANESH KUMAR @ DINESH KUMAR .... Appellant
VERSUS
ANIL KUMAR & ORS. .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the appellant.
Respondent No.3 proceeded against ex parte
vide order dated 09.02.2017.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant
aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur vide award dated 28.11.2005.
2. The claim petition was filed by the claimant-appellant for
recovery of Rs.2,52,000/- as compensation on account of damage caused to
his shop due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration
No.PB-06-B-2026 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The
Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant-
appellant had failed to prove on the record that he was the owner of the shop
in question which was damaged in the accident. The specific case of the
respondent was that the claimant-appellant was not the owner of the shop in
question. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence the claim petition
was dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that
the claimant-appellant had purchased the shop from one Narinder Kumar son
integrity of this judgment/order.
241 FAO-1804-2006 (O&M) -2-
of Om Parkash and that being the owner of the shop the claim petition at his
behest was maintainable.
4. On a pointed question by the Court as to whether any evidence
was led qua his ownership, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has
admitted that there is no document on the record to prove his ownership.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 would contend
that in the absence of any proof of ownership, the claim petition was rightly
dismissed.
6. Heard.
7. In the present case a categoric finding has been returned by the
Tribunal that the claimant-appellant had not placed on record any document
to show that he was the owner of the shop in dispute. In his cross-
examination, it was specifically put to the claimant-appellant that Narinder
Kumar son of Om Parkash was the owner of the shop in question and the
said fact was denied by the claimant-appellant. Despite the stand taken by
the respondent that the claimant-appellant was not the owner of the shop, the
claimant-appellant failed to produce even an iota of evidence to show that he
was the owner of the shop in dispute.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in
the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. The present appeal, being
devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed off.
06.03.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this judgment/order.
