1 FAO NO. 1334 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT HANDIGARH FAO NO. 1334 of 2009 Date of order: 19.09.2011 Jaspal Kaur and others ..... Appellants Versus Onkar Singh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. B.P.S. Virk, Advocate for respondent no.2. None for the other respondents. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Smt. Jaspal Kaur and others have brought this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them in a sum of Rs.50,000/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Adhoc), Patiala (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.02.2008. The case of the claimants for compensation, brought under the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short 'the Act') is as under:- On 17.05.2005 Gurcharan Singh of village Bagora came to the house of the claimants and asked the deceased to give him lift upto Patiala. Satpal Singh started his journey on his motorcycle bearing registration no.PB-11-0/5433 with Gurcharan Singh on the pillion of his motorcycle. When they were 4 or 5 Kms ahead of village Bagora, a jeep 2 FAO NO. 1334 of 2009 bearing registration no.PB-11M/8735 came from the side of Patiala at a very high speed. It was moving in a zig-zag manner. It came to the wrong side of the road and a head-on collision occurred with the motorcycle of the deceased. The deceased was moving on his correct left side of the road at normal speed. Satpal Singh is claimed to be a young man of 35 or 36 years. He was earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month. The claim petition has been resisted by respondent nos. 1 and 3, who have denied the claim of the claimants. It has been pleaded by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. that the claim petition has been filed in connivance with respondent no.1 and 2. It is submitted that photocopy of the driving licence of respondent no.1, photocopy of registration certificate of the vehicle and copy of insurance policy have been filed by the claimants in the claim petition. It is claimed that surprisingly no FIR was got registered regarding this accident and in such events, it was not possible for the claimants to have procured these documents. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1- Whether Satpal Singh died in a motor accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep No.PB-11M/8735 by its driver respondent no.1 Onkar Singh on 17.5.2005 in the area of village Bagora ?OPA 2- Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom ?OPA 3 FAO NO. 1334 of 2009 3- Whether the driver of the offending vehicle respondent no.1 Onkar Singh was not holding any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ?OPR3 4- Relief.” The parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal has found the claimants to have failed to prove that the accident is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep. Therefore, only a sum of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability has been awarded to the claimants. Dissatisfied with this award, the claimants have filed this appeal. I have heard Mr. P.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.B.P.S. Virk, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the claimants cannot be denied the compensation for non-registration of a criminal case with regard to the accident. According to him, compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.50,000/- should be enhanced by adopting the multiplier system. It is a case where Shri Harjit Singh, IPS has appeared as a witness and has tendered his affidavit Ex.RW2 in the evidence. According to Shri Harjit Singh, IPS, the accident occurred as the motorcycle had struck against Sisam tree. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any evidence on record which may prove 4 FAO NO. 1334 of 2009 the accident to be a result of rash and negligent driving of any vehicle. Although I may agree with learned counsel for the appellants that the issue of rash and negligent driving could be proved in the absence of FIR, yet there must be cogent and convincing evidence to prove the same. In the case in hand the evidence of Harjit Singh points to the other direction with no other evidence to prove the accident to be a result of rash and negligent driving of jeep No.PB-11M/8735. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the impugned award. The appeal is consequently dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.09.2011 dinesh