IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH F. A. O. No. 3692 of 1999 Date of Decision: December 11, 2008 Tejinder Kaur and others ...........Appellants Versus Sarwan Singh and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Ms.Malkiat Mann,Advocate for the appellants. Mr.N.K.Khosla, Advocate for the New India Assurance Company Ltd. * * * Sabina, J. This is an appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as `Tribunal') dated 15.10.1998 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), was dismissed. The case of the claimants, as stated in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 7.3.1994, Kapoor Singh (since deceased) was travelling on Scooter No. PB-10-B-8251 at a normal speed on his left side of the road. A Truck bearing No. PCX-595 came from Barnala Chowk, Sangrur and was going towards Truck Union,Sangrur at a high speed driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and struck against Scooter of Kapoor Singh. As a result of this, Kapoor Singh suffered multiple injuries. He was removed to the Civil Hospital for treatment. He succumbed to his injuries on 13.3.1994. F. A. O. No. 3692 of 1999 -2- Notice of the claim petition was issued to the respondents and they filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1. Whether Kapoor Singh died on 7.3.94 due to rash and negligent driving by Sarwan Singh of truck No. PCX- 595 on 7.3.1994 near PWD (B&R), Sangrur? OPA 2. Whether claimants are entitled to amount of compensation? If so,to what amount and against whom? OPA. 3. Relief.” Parties led their evidence in support of their case. Vide the impugned award, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants and aggrieved by the same, claimants have filed the present appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, no FIR was registered with regard to the accident. On the other hand, Exhibit R1, a copy of writing, was proved on record. In the said writing, it was mentioned that the accident had taken place suddenly. The said writing was duly signed by Sukhbir Singh, son of deceased-Kapoor Singh, claimant No.2. In view of the said writing, no criminal case was registered against Sarwan Singh-respondent No.1. Sukhbir Singh did not appear in the witness box to deny his signatures on the writing. Exhibit R2 is the copy of Daily Diary Register entry No.23 dated 9.3.1994 which was entered on the basis of a compromise Exhibit R1. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved F. A. O. No. 3692 of 1999 -3- the testimony of the alleged eye witness-Jagar Singh (AW2). Although DDR is not a substantive piece of evidence yet it can be used for corroborating or discrediting purposes. The accident, in this case, had allegedly taken place on 7.3.1994. DDR (Exhibit R2) recorded on 9.3.1994 is, thus, the first version regarding the accident, wherein, it was mentioned that the accident had taken place suddenly. Thus, nobody was blamed for the accident in the DDR (Exhibit R2). Accordingly, learned Tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim and the impugned award calls for no interference. Hence, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Sabina) December 11, 2008 Judge arya