KANHIYA LAL Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED with the findings of the impugned award the appellant has preferred the present appeal. The main grievance of the appellant is that the claim petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the Tribunal only on the ground that he had failed to prove factum of the accident. Mr. Murari Lal, PW-1, father of the appellant entered the witness box and in his examination-in-chief, he denied his presence at the spot of accident. Placing reliance on the said testimony of PW-1, the learned Tribunal felt that once the said witness himself has denied his presence at the spot, therefore, mere registration of an FIR against the offender of the vehicle could not have been of any help to the appellant to claim compensation amount. Mr. J. S. Kanwar counsel for the appellant contends that statement of Murari Lal, was recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and therefore, due to some oversight and inadvertence the word not got inserted in the deposition of the said PW-1. Counsel contends that due to the error committed by the stenographer or due to negligence of the counsel representing the appellant, the appellant should not be made to suffer on account of the said mistake which crept in while recording the statement of PW-1.

(2.) COUNSEL also contends that the appellant had suffered disability to the extent of 33% and great prejudice would be caused to the appellant if the matter is not remanded back so as to give fresh opportunity to the appellant to prove the negligence.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, counsel for the respondent contends that no fault can be found with the findings of the Tribunal as the said witness PW-1 who was stated to be the only witness of the accident himself denied his presence at the spot, therefore, the same apparently shows that no accident had occurred, involving the vehicle implicated in the said FIR. Counsel for the respondent further contends that not only this, even the appellant had failed to prove any kind of disability so as to claim compensation amount.