IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.4660/2008(O&M) Date of Decision: 29.5.2009. Smt.Bhagwati Devi and others ..........Appellants Versus Bhoop Singh and another. ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. J.S.Cooner,Advocate for the appellants. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Appellants-claimants, being the widow, minor children and parents of deceased Jaipal have filed the instant appeal challenging the award dated 28.11.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing their claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Briefly noticed, the case of the claimants-appellants was that on 25.1.2005 at about 7.30/8 pm deceased Jaipal was coming from Loharu to Village Jhuppa Kalan on motorcycle bearing registration no.MH-12-CB-5290 and when he reached near Village Toda Dhani, a Mahindra Max owned and being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1-Bhoop Singh came from back side and hit the said motorcycle, as a result of which Jaipal received multiple injuries. Later on he succumbed to his injuries in General Hospital,Bhiwani. A criminal case under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered against said Bhoop Singh on next day i.e. on 26.1.2005. FAO No.4660/2008(O&M) 2 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is outcome of mis-reading and improper appreciation of cogent and convincing evidence adduced by the claimants on record. Heard learned counsel and perused the paper book. In support of their claim, appellants examined PW1 Hira Singh, PW2 Bhagwati Devi (widow of deceased ) and PW3 Rajesh Kumar, alleged eye witness. It is not disputed that all the PWs in their cross examination have admitted that they were not present there at the time of accident. Even PW3 Rajesh Kumar,alleged eye witness in his cross examination stated that the accident had already taken place 2-3 minutes before he reached the spot. It was further admitted by him that police met him at the Civil Hospital, Loharu but his statement was not recorded. Further, FIR in this case was registered on the next date on the statement of PW1 Hira Singh(father of the deceased). It was stated by him in the FIR that his deceased son Jaipal told him that some vehicle hit him from back side. It was nowhere case of Hira Singh that he was told about the accident by PW3 Rajesh, whereas it was stated by Rajesh PW3 that he came to know about the address of the deceased from a diary lying in the pocket of the deceased and then he informed the family of the deceased telephonically about the accident. Moreover, in the FIR the accident was stated to have been caused by some unknown vehicle. Still further, though the deceased was allegedly declared dead by Medical Officer, General Hospital,Bhiwani, but it was case of the respondents that the post mortem FAO No.4660/2008(O&M) 3 examination was conducted by Medical Officer,General Hospital,Jind. This material discrepancy was not at all explained by the claimants. From a perusal of the above, it is evident that the case set up by the appellants in the claim petition was contradicted on various points by the testimonies of PWs examined by them. Mere pendency of criminal case against the driver (who also happens to be owner of the alleged offending vehicle) in my opinion, alone cannot be held to be clinching evidence, unless supported by other evidence produced in claim petition by the claimants. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. 29.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge