FAO No. 5721 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 5721 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.5.2010 Lovelean Kaur and others ... Appellants vs Tara Singh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for respondent no. 3. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the petition filed by the appellants claiming compensation on account of death of Gulraj Singh, was dismissed on 13.1.2009. Briefly, the facts are that on 17.12.2005 at about 10.00 p.m., Gulraj Singh along with Surinder Kumar and Prabhdayal Singh alias Bagga, was coming from Amritsar to Batala in a Scorpio bearing registration no. PB-08-C (Temp.) 6665. It was being driven by Prabhdayal Singh alias Bagga respondent no. 4. When they reached near Adda Ghasitpur about five hundred yards towards Batala side, then a truck bearing registration no. RJ-13-G-6338, driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly applied break. The driver of the Scorpio tried his best to stop the Scorpio but despite that the Scorpio struck backside of the truck. As a result of this, Gulraj Singh and Surinder Kumar died on the spot and Prabhdayal Singh received multiple injuries. The dependents of deceased Gulraj Singh filed claim petition through attorney Rajwant Singh, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.1.2009. It is this order which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants, who are widow, minor daughters, minor son and aged mother, have lost their sole bread earner in the accident. As they were not in a position to prosecute the claim being ladies and minor children, they authorised Rajwant Singh, as their general power of attorney to file and contest the claim petition. He had engaged an Advocate for pursuing the claim petition before the Tribunal. He submitted that claim petition FAO No. 5721 of 2009 -2- was filed on 11.11.2006 and thereafter the case was fixed for service of the respondents and for filing of written statement. Only respondent no. 3- insurance company filed its written statement on 2.4.2008, on which date, the issues were also framed. However, the counsel in the Tribunal never informed them to adduce the evidence in the above claim petition. It was due to this reason that the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on 13.1.2009. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a perusal of the facts on record clearly establish that ever since the claim petition was filed by the appellants, the same was not being pursued by them. No process fee was filed for summoning the witnesses. In such circumstances, no case for consideration of the claim petition on merits, is made out. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the zimni orders produced on record reveals that their counsel was present on each and every date except on the date when the impugned order was passed. The case remained pending from 11.11.2006 to 2.4.2008 for service of the respondents and for their reply. No doubt, it is a case where there has been some lapse on the part of the appellants, their attorney as well as the counsel engaged by them. The process fee was not filed for summoning the witnesses. However, it cannot be said that by not producing the evidence the claimants were not to gain anything, therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel that as the counsel engaged by them before the learned Tribunal had not informed their attorney and due to this he could not lead evidence cannot be said to be incorrect. Considering the fact that merely because there is some lapse on the part of the attorney of the appellants or counsel engaged by them, in my opinion, the claimants should not be made to suffer as they have lost their sole bread earner in the accident which they have to prove by leading evidence. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 13.1.2009 passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 11.6.2010 for decision of the claim petition on merits after affording the parties reasonable opportunity to lead evidence. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 19.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge