Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 6345 P&H
Judgement Date : 20 March, 2024
2024:PHHC:039668
FAO-351-2004 (O&M)
257
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-351-2004 (O&M)
Reserved on : 11.03.2024
Date of Decision : 20.03.2024
Balvinder Singh ....Appellant
VERSUS
Vishnu Pal and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Ms. Kanchan Sindhu, Advocate for
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant
challenging the award dated 20.11.2003 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') whereby
the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that
the accident in the present case stood duly proved, however, the Tribunal on
the basis of minor discrepancy dismissed the claim petition. It is further the
contention of the learned counsel that it was amply proved on the record that
the registration number of the vehicle was 4185 and not 4813.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant.
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:039668
FAO-351-2004 (O&M)
4. In the present case the Tribunal, after detailed discussion, held
that initially the registration number as given by the claimant-appellant was
4183 and subsequently the said number was changed to 4185. It has come on
the record that the claimant-appellant and Angrej Singh remained at the spot
for ten minutes and probably much longer. Lakhvinder Singh stated that they
had also deflated the front tyre of the tractor at the spot and hence the
Tribunal found that it could not have been a mistake in noting the number.
The contradictions in the statements made from time to time has come in the
evidence in the criminal case and cannot be overlooked. It was also observed
by the Tribunal that there was no damage either to the tractor or to the
scooter. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has not been able to
convince this Court that the Tribunal had erred in any manner in dismissing
the claim petition. No other point was argued.
5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN ) 20.03.2024 JUDGE Yogesh Sharma NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!