FAO No. 1849 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1849 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.05.2010 Jamshed ....Appellant Versus Billu and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This appeal, by Jamshed, is directed against the award dated 13.2.2007, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant claimed compensation by claiming himself to be the husband of Khurshida alias Rukshida deceased, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 22.2.2004. Another petition, claiming compensation on account of death of Khurshida alias Rukshida, was filed by Subani wife of Noor Mohd, the mother of the deceased. Smt. Subani in the claim petition filed by her, had claimed that Khurshida alias Rukshida was her unmarried daughter aged 20 years. She had also claimed Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) for the money spent on the treatment of the FAO No. 1849 of 2007 (O&M) -2- deceased. As already observed above, the appellant claimed the deceased to be his wife, and that he was entitled to compensation on account of her death. The plea was raised, that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand only) per month by doing tailoring work. The mother of the deceased and the appellant claimed to be dependent on her. The claim petition filed by Subani was allowed and compensation on account of death of Khurshida alias Rukshida was awarded. The learned Tribunal held that Khurshida alias Rukshida daughter of Subani had died in a motor vehicular accident on 22.2.2004, on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-55-B-6359 by respondent No.1, which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. She was held entitled to Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees two lac and twenty five thousand only) as compensation along with interest. The claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, as the learned Tribunal held that the appellant could not prove, that the deceased was his wife. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal, dismissing his claim petition, by contending that the learned Tribunal failed to consider, that in the post-mortem report, the deceased was shown to be his wife, and the post-mortem report was signed by the maternal uncle and brother of the deceased. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the FAO No. 1849 of 2007 (O&M) -3- appellant, that even in FIR, the appellant was shown to be the husband of the deceased, as also in the register maintained at the burial ground. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that the finding of the learned Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to be in consonance with law. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant failed to produce nikahnama, by claiming it to be in possession of the mother of the deceased, however, no steps were taken by him to seek production of that nikahnama, nor any steps were taken to produce the secondary evidence by examining the religious leader, who performed the nikah. Not only this, though the appellant claimed that maternal uncle and brother of the deceased had signed the post-mortem report, but he did not examine these witnesses to prove the relationship, nor any evidence as per provisions of Section 50 of the Evidence Act, was led to establish relationship. The marriage of the deceased with the appellant was disputed, therefore, the evidence on which the reliance is placed, by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be used to prove the disputed relationship. The appellant having failed to lead any evidence as per provisions of Section 50 of the Evidence Act, the learned Tribunal rightly held, that the relationship was not proved. Even otherwise, there is no evidence showing the dependency of the appellant, on the deceased, which could entitle him for compensation. The appellant has not disclosed, about the job he was FAO No. 1849 of 2007 (O&M) -4- doing and also as how he was dependent on his wife. Finding no merit in this appeal, it is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 26, 2010 R.S.