In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. F.A.O.No.313 of 2006 (O&M) Decided on Feb 06 ,2008 Marrium --Appellant. vs. Avtar Singh and others -- Respondents. Present: Mr.M.B.Singh,Advocate,for the appellant. Mr.Surinder Garg,Advocate,for respondent No.7. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This appeal is directed against the order dated September 19, 2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby claim petition filed by widow of Chaman Lal since deceased for grant of compensation of Rs. 5 lacs against owner and driver of the offending truck as well as Insurance Company was dismissed. In brief, facts of the case are that Chaman Lal since deceased, husband of the appellant was working as Munshi with M/s. Kohinoor Crushing Company G.T. Road, Damtal, District Kangra (H.P.) On February 12,2001, at about 10.p.m, a truck bearing No. PB-11-F-9354 entered into the premises of said Company for loading of crusher. The deceased Chaman Lal was to check the load of the truck and after checking F.A.O.No.313 of 2006 (O&M) -2- of load, when he moved back for going to his office, suddenly driver of the offending truck started the truck and drove back rashly and negligently without even looking backward and in that process, crushed Chaman Lal, as a result of which, he died at the spot. On the matter having been reported to the police, a case bearing FIR No. 38 dated February 13,2001, was registered under Sections 279/304-A of I.P.C. at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra against Jagdish Singh, driver of the offending truck, arrayed as respondent No.2 in the claim petition. On notice of claim petition, respondent No.1 owner of the truck filed written statement and besides taking technical pleas of mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, it was averred that he had also sold the vehicle in question to one Ravi Kumar son of Jagdish Lal, resident of Faridkot, on November 01,2002, whereas accident had taken place on February 12,2001. Respondent Nos. 2 and 7 also filed their written statement. Respondent No.7 admitted that he is presently owner of the offending vehicle. Other averments were, however, denied. Insurance Company also filed its separate written statement but pleaded contributory negligence and also averred that if the accident is proved in that case, they are not liable to pay compensation because respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- 1.Whether Chaman Lal died in the motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of Jagdish Singh respondent No.2, while driving truck No. PB-11-F-9354? OPA. F.A.O.No.313 of 2006 (O&M) -3- 2.Whether respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and respondent Nos. 1 and 7 had no valid documents relating to the vehicle at the time of accident. If so its effect ? OPR 3.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. If so how much and from which of the respondents ? OPA 4.Relief: In support of the claim petition, Raj Kumar son of the deceased appeared as AW-2 and stated that his father had died in the accident on February 12,2001 while working in the premises of M/s.Kohinoor Crushing Company due to the rash and negligent act of respondent No.2, who had suddenly started the truck in question and drove back the same rashly and negligently which ran-over his father, who died at the spot with multiple grievous injuries . He also stated that he had lodged the FIR Ex A1 of this accident. The Tribunal decided issue No.1 against the claimant on the ground that the claimant had failed to produce on record the proof of death of Chaman Lal. The Tribunal also found that in the absence of post mortem report, the statement of Raj Kumar AW-2 (son of the deceased) cannot be believed. Issue No.2 was,thus, decided in favour of the Insurance Company ,resultantly,the claim petition was dismissed as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. The claimant filed along-with the appeal,an application bearing C.M.No.1078-CII of 2006 under order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of C.P.C.,supported by an affidavit for permission to place on F.A.O.No.313 of 2006 (O&M) -4- record a certified copy of the post mortem report of deceased Chaman Lal. It was averred in the application that she was not aware of the fact of post mortem report, therefore, the same could not be produced before the Tribunal. Since the copy of the post mortem report has been obtained, it was prayed that the same may be placed on record and the Tribunal be directed to re-decide the matter after taking the same into consideration. At the time of admission of the appeal on January 18,2007, the said application, referred to above, was also ordered to be heard with the main appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record carefully. The application for additional evidence is supported by an affidavit of the appellant. Certified copy of post mortem report is the document coming from the custody of S.M.O, Sub Divisional Hospital, Nurpur (Kangra) H.P and as a public document. On the other hand, no reply has been filed to this application, rather the parties are at ad-idem that this application be allowed and the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal to re-decide issue No.1 after taking the post mortem report into consideration. In view of the above, the application is allowed and post mortem report is taken on record. The Tribunal has not decided issue No.3 with regard to entitlement of the appellant for compensation in view of finding on issue F.A.O.No.313 of 2006 (O&M) -5- No.1. Since the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal to decide issue No.1 afresh after taking into consideration the post mortem report. The present appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated September 19,2005, passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, to decide issue No.1 afresh after taking into consideration the report of post mortem and also decide the main claim petition in accordance with law, preferably within six months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. The parties are, therefore, directed to appear before the Tribunal on February 27,2008. Feb 06,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge