JANPAL SINGH vs OM PARKASH AND ORS

SARITA RANI 2026.07.17 14:39 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order FAO No.5732 of 2011 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 097575 respondent No.1 stopped the vehicle aer the accident and disclosed his identy. 2.2 It was further pleaded that he was inially taken to Civil Hospital, Safidon and thereaer shied to Virk Orthopedic Centre, Karnal on 05.02.2005, where surgery was performed and he remained admi(ed ll 07.02.2005. Since no medico-legal report was prepared at Civil Hospital, Safidon, the police did not register any criminal case. Consequently, he got himself medico-legally examined on 10.03.2005 and thereaer repeatedly approached the police for registraon of the FIR. As no acon was taken, he instuted a criminal complaint under Secons 279, 337 and 338 IPC against respondent No.1, in which summons were issued. 2.3 The claimant further pleaded that he was 23 years of age, earning ₹75,000/- per month, had suffered permanent disability and incurred substanal medical expenses. 3. Respondent No.1, who was also the owner of the vehicle, denied the occurrence altogether. According to him, no accident involving the alleged vehicle had taken place. 4. The Insurance Company also disputed