Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 15862 P&H
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
240 FAO-4911-2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 30.09.2024
Harpreet Singh ....Appellant
VERSUS
Balwinder Singh and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Gagandeep Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for
Mr. R.N. Singal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging
the award dated 05.10.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') whereby the claim
petition filed by the appellant was dismissed as there was no evidence on the
record qua the treatment taken by the appellant.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant herein would contend that
another witness of the accident, namely, Jatinder Singh, who stepped into
the witness-box as PW-2, has stated that he was an eye-witness of the
accident and hence the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition.
3. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.3 has stated that the eye-witness of the accident, namely, Jatinder Singh
appeared as PW-2 and he admitted in his cross-examination that he did not
witness the occurrence and hence it was clear that he was introduced later on
integrity of this order/judgment
as his name was not even mentioned in the application. It is further the
contention that the occurrence was not even reported to the police. Further
still, the bills, which were produced by the appellant, were all photocopies
and none of the bills/receipts had the parentage of the patient, his address or
age. The appellant has also not examined any doctor in support of the
injuries received by him.
4. Heard.
5. In the present case the appellant failed to produce evidence in
accordance with law inasmuch as the documents produced on the record
were photocopies of the bills and none was summoned from the concerned
hospital. Even the doctor has not stepped into the witness-box to depose qua
the alleged injuries stated to have been suffered by the appellant herein. The
argument of learned counsel for the appellant that another eye-witness of the
accident, namely, Jatinder Singh has stepped into the witness-box as PW-2,
is also belied by the fact that he admitted in his cross-examination that he
was not a witness to the said accident. In the absence of any evidence, no
fault can be found with the award passed by the Tribunal.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN ) 30.09.2024 JUDGE jk
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!