In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 1017 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: September 17, 2009 Smt. Kamlesh and others .. Appellants Vs. Rajinder Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J CM No. 4397-CII of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. application is allowed. FAO No.1017 of 2009 This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.9.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind, dismissing the claim petition relating to the death of Ramesh Chand Pal allegedly on account of the rash and negligent driving of maruti Alto car bearing registration No.HR33A- 7482. On 31.5.2006, Ramesh Chander Pal since deceased, while driving motor cycle bearing registration No.HR02K-3590 was going from UHBVN Jagadhari to village Chudiala. His motor cycle was followed by Shyam Lal on separate motor cycle bearing registration No.HR07G-6317 Bajaj CT 100. At about 7.45 p.m. when he was 200 yards ahead of village Milk Majra towards Jagadhari situated on Jagadhari-Ambala road, the respondent No.1 while driving his maruti Alto car bearing registration No.HR33A-7482, rashly and negligently, came from the opposite side and struck his car against motor cycle of Ramesh Chand Pal. Resultantly, the latter fell down and suffered injuries. Consequently, he was taken to Redix Hospital Manka Manki where he was declared dead. Jaspreet Singh was also present at the time of accident who was in the offending car. F.A.O. No. 1017 of 2009 (O&M) -2- *** Eventually, the claimant also preferred the claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lacs along with interest @ 18% per annum. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. The respondents No.1, 2 and 2-A in their written statement denied the accident itself and further stated that the respondent No.1 was not responsible for any accident. The National Insurance Company Limited also denied the allegations and further added that the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence. The vehicle was driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Rejoinder has also been filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the accident in question occurred on 31.5.2006 at about 7.45 p.m. about 200 yards towards Jagadhari side from village Milk Majra, P.S. Chapar, District Yamuna Nagar, while driving the offending Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.HR33A-7482 by respondent No.1 Rajinder Singh in a rash and negligent manner causing the death of Ramesh Chand Pal son of Shri Nanak Chand?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount of compensation, if so, how much amount and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid Driving Licence at the time of alleged accident?OPR-3 4. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. The Tribunal while holding that the petitioner had miserably failed to prove issue No.1 held that the appellants were not entitled to any compensation. Arguments heard. Record perused. The star witness to prove the rash and negligent act, which is the only sine qua non to prove the fault on the part of the respondent No.1 entitling the claimants for compensation does not stand substantiated from F.A.O. No. 1017 of 2009 (O&M) -3- *** the evidence led on the record. The only star witness Jaspreet Singh while deposing as PW-3 did not depose any where that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. He does not name the driver, rather, he states that the car was not stopped by the driver after the accident. He did not lodge the FIR. He did not inform the police about the accident at bus stand Jagadhari. He also does not depose any where if it was car bearing registration No.HR33A-7482 which he had boarded and it was driven by the respondent No.1. The examination in chief in the shape of an affidavit furnished by this witness appears to be concocted and cannot be said to be his statement as he has deposed that his affidavit was prepared by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He had gone to his seat where the affidavit was got typed. The FIR (Ex.P-1) reveals that it was got recorded by Shyam Lal son of Chamela Ram, distant relative of the deceased against the un-known driver and it also does not contain the number of the offending car. Mere fact that the respondent No.1 was challaned by the police does not in any way establish that it was respondent No.1 who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. Except the statement of Jaspreet Singh no such evidence has been led to establish if the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of respondent No.1. Resultantly, finding no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the Tribunal, the appeal is hereby dismissed. September 17, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge