In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 5422 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: August 21, 2009 Puja through her mother and natural guardian Smt. Shakuntla .. Appellant Vs. Ram Mehar and others .. Respondents F.A.O. No.5423 of 2008 (O&M) Rohit through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Shakuntala .. Appellant Vs. Ram Mehar and others .. Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J This order of mine shall dispose of two connected appeals i.e. FAO Nos. 5422 and 5423 of 2008, having arisen out of the award dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad, dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants (herein referred as 'the claimants') for seeking compensation on account of the injuries, suffered by them in a motor vehicular accident. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 4.5.2009 Rohit and his sister Puja were playing in front of their house at village Dehman, which is situated by the side of the road. In the meantime, maruti Gypsy bearing registration No.HR25A-2500 came from the side of bus stand Dehman and the driver of the jeep (respondent No.1) could not control the jeep and brought it on the wrong side and hit the children, as a result of which the claimants Puja and Rohit received injuries. Consequently, both Rohit and Puja filed claim petitions seeking F.A.O. No. 5422 of 2008 & F.A.O. No.5423 of 2008 -2- compensation on the aforesaid facts. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of jeep No.HR-25A-2500 by respondent No.1?OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? If so, to what effect?OPR2. 4. Relief. In support of their claim, the claimants produced Dr. R.C. Goyal (PW1), Sushil Chaudhary (PW2), Dr. O.P. Dehmiwal (PW3), Shakuntla (PW4) and Krishan (PW5). They also placed on record documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. Ultimately, the claim petitions were dismissed. Heard. Admittedly, there were many villagers at the time of occurrence, but none was examined to prove if Ram Mehar-respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Though, the FIR was recorded but it does not contain the name of the driver nor the number of the vehicle. Krishan (PW5) has stated that he being illiterate person could not read the number of the vehicle and he was told about the name of the driver and number of the vehicle by one Suresh. But, unfortunately, the said Suresh has also not been examined. As such, in the absence of any evidence suggesting Ram Mehar's involvement at the time of accident, the findings returned by the Tribunal deserve to be confirmed and are hereby confirmed. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. August 21, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge