JAGDISH MITTER PURI Vs. BALDEV SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for what the Tribunal discarded to be a lack of proof of involvement of insured's vehicle. Soon after the accident there was an entry in the MLR that the claimant had suffered head injury by the involvement of a Maruti Van. There was no reference to registration number. However, a FIR had been registered on the same day referring to the Maruti Van as having registration No. CH01J -6769. P.W. 3 Karam Singh stated that while undertaking investigation it was found that number was not CH01J -6769, but, was on the other hand CH01J -8769. The claimant when he gave his evidence stated that the number had been wrongly given, it should have been only 8669. Yet another witness P.W. 7 also stated that number had been wrongly given, it should have been only 8669. Therefore, three registration numbers were introduced in the course of trial and the Tribunal found the discrepancy as not going to establish the involvement of the vehicle.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the claimant states that even the oral evidence at the trial which makes a reference to 8669 was also a mistake, but there was evidence that the vehicle was a police escort vehicle for a Member of Parliament at that time. The police official P.W. 3 had also stated that in his investigation he found the vehicle No. 8769 was an escort vehicle. Since the identity of the vehicle alleged to have been involved is consistent with reference to the make of the vehicle, namely, Maruti Van and that further that vehicle was an escort van for a Member of Parliament, I will not take the issue of discrepancy with reference to registration number for the mistake is only with reference to the first digit '6' when it should have been '8'.

(3.) THE liability shall be on the Respondents jointly and severally and the claimant shall have the liberty to realize the same against the insurer with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment.