In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 2404 of 2009 Date of decision: December 18, 2009 Bimla and others ... Appellants vs. Hardwari Lal and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J The claim petition preferred by Bimla Devi and others on account of the death of Raju in a motor vehicular accident on 2.7.2007, was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, on 6.1.2009, which is not under challenge. In support of their claim, the claimants had examined Bimla widow of the deceased Raju as PW-1 and Raj Kumar as (PW2) besides tendering some documents. None of the aforesaid two witnessed had witnessed the occurrence. Raj Kumar (PW2) the alleged eye witness has not supported the claimant's case. He stated only that on the night of 1.7.2007, at about 11-12 o'clock he was going in his three wheeler bearing registration No.RJ-31-PA-0588 from Bhadra to Nangal to drop the passengers, when he saw a person lying on the road near the fields of Hari Ram i.e. one kilemeter ahead from Bhadra. Thereafter he went away to Nangal, and after twenty minutes, when he returned and reached near bus stand Rattanpura, he saw “pick up” bearing registration No.HR38-G-5093, without light going from Bhadra to Adampur and a dead body was lying on the road. He further stated that no other vehicle except the aforesaid “pick up” was seen by him. During cross examination, he admitted that he did not stop the vehicle (pick up) when he had firstly crossed the person lying on the road. He also admitted that he had not F.A.O. No. 2404 of 2009 -2 *** witnessed the accident. Thus, no reliance could be placed on such statement of Raj Kumar (PW2). Bimla Devi (PW1), is not an eye witness to the occurrence. No other evidence has brought on record to prove the rash and negligent act of the respondent Hardwari Lal. The claimants have badly failed to prove if the occurrence took place as a result of rash and negligent act of Hardwari Lal. As such, they have been rightly held not entitled to any compensation. The Tribunal appears to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. December 18, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge