F.A.O.No.1799 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.1799 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : July 20, 2009 Rajinder Kaur and others ... Appellants VERSUS Piara Lal and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sanjiv Pandey, Advocate for the applicant-appellants. A.N.JINDAL, J.- CM No.9457-CII of 2009 is allowed and the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.1799/2009 : This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.10.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants/appellants (herein referred as the appellants) was dismissed. In short, the facts are that on 29.4.2007 at about 9.00 p.m, the deceased Jaswinder Rai after purchasing some vegetables from Mahilpur, was coming back to his house on his bicycle and when he reached in front of Khalsa College, Mahilpur, the offending truck bearing Reg.No.HP24- 1752 being driven by Piara Lal – respondent No.1 rashly and negligently F.A.O.No.1799 of 2009 [ 2 ] came from the opposite side and struck his bicycle, as a result of which he suffered injuries. However, on the way to the Hospital, he succumbed to injuries. A case under Section 279, 427, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Mahilpur. Afterwards, the appellants filed the claim petition, which was contested and the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Jaswinder Rai died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 29.4.07 at about 9.00 pm in the area of Police Station Mahilpur near Khalsa College due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck bearing No.HP-24-1752 by respondent No.1? OPA 2. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving license issued by competent authority at the time of accident?OPR 3. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPA 4. Relief.” The Tribunal while holding that none of the witnesses as examined by the appellants has stated with regard to the negligence of respondent No.1, therefore, the accident cannot be said to have been proved. Having scrutinised the record, it transpires that two witnesses, namely; Rajinder Kaur (AW1) and Bhag Wanti (AW2), who had initially filed affidavits Ex.AW1/A and AW2/A admitting the facts, did not withstand the test of cross-examination. Both of them during cross- F.A.O.No.1799 of 2009 [ 3 ] examination state that they were not present at the spot and they did not see the accident. The First Information Report (Ex.A1) was registered on the statement of HC Iqbal Singh, who has not been examined. No explanation has come-forth as to why he was not called in the witness box. To the contrary, the respondent – driver Piara Lal has taken a specific plea that he was not present at the place of the accident and no accident was caused by him. The post mortem examination report and other documents have not even been exhibited, so as to extend any help to the appellants in order to prove the death of Jaswinder Rai in an accident. Thus, the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are affirmed. Consequently, the findings on other issues, as well, call for no interference. Dismissed. July 20, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE