FAO No.1610 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1610 of 2010 Date of decision:25.8.2011 Ashok and another ...Appellants Versus Krishna and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Anil Ghanghas,Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Arun Bansal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. -.- JITENDRA CHUAHAN, J. The present appeal is directed against the award dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short `the Tribunal), whereby the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was accepted. Brief facts of the present case are that the deceased Surajbhan died in a motor accident on 1.5.2007 at the age of 20 years leaving behind his parents i.e. respondents in the present case. The parents of the deceased filed the claim petition on the ground that deceased was the only bread earner. Initially, the FIR under Sections 302/34 was lodged on the complaint of Naurang Ram, but later on during investigation, it was found FAO No.1610 of 2010 2 that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor by appellant No.1. The appellants, Ashok and Sajjan, who were the driver and owner, respectively of the offending Tractor, took the stand in their reply that appellant No. 1 was falsely involved in the present case due to animosity between maternal uncles of appellant No.1 and deceased Suraj Bhan, which is proved on account of conversion of FIR under Section 302/34 to Section 279/304-A IPC. They further took the stand that no accident as alleged by the respondents had taken place with the offending vehicle. After framing of issues, allowing the parties to lead evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal vide award dated 21.12.2009 allowed the claim petition of the respondents-claimants and awarded an amount of `1,85,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @7.5% per annum. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellants i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle have preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellant No.1 has been falsely involved in the present case as initially an FIR under Section 302/34 IPC was registered against the appellant No.1 but later on the same was converted under Section 279/304-A IPC. He further submits that the learned Tribunal wrongly relied upon the statement of Naurang Ram, PW1, who initially suffered the statement regarding commission of offence of murder under Section 302 IPC. It has further been submitted that there is no evidence, which suggests that the alleged incident caused due to rash and negligent driving FAO No.1610 of 2010 3 of appellant No.1. Learned counsel has also submitted that the learned Tribunal did not appreciate the pleadings of the appellants, who categorically deposed that they had helped Rajender (maternal uncle of the deceased) to take the injured to the hospital. Learned counsel has also submitted that the material witnesses i.e. Rajender, Hoshiar Singh and Sher Singh have not been examined. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the statement of Naurang Ram, PW1, it is established that the alleged accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by appellant No.1, whose owner is appellant No.2. This witness also deposed that the accused/appellant Ashok made a confessional statement before the police. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The short question involved in the present appeal is that whether the appellant is liable to pay the compensation or not? From a perusal of the case file, it emerges that an FIR under Sections 279/304-A was registered on the statement of Naurang Ram, PW1, against appellant No.1. The learned Tribunal rightly held that initial reporting to the police in FIR cannot be said to be false and exaggeration of facts. He was arrested and made confessional statement before the police. The appellant No.1 was being tried on this count. Naurang Ram, PW1, tendered his affidavit, Exhibit PW1/A, which is corroborated by the version of FIR. This witness was cross-examined at length and the learned Tribunal observed that the facts stated by him in his examination-in-chief remained unrebutted. FAO No.1610 of 2010 4 Apart from the above, it has also come on record that appellant No.1 failed to place on record any driving licence. The offending vehicle owned by appellant No.2 was not insured. Therefore, in the circumstances enumerated, the learned Tribunal rightly held the appellants liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents jointly and severally. In view of above, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 25.8.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE