IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO 3323 of 2008 Date of Decision:16.3.2009. Kaushaliya Devi ..........Appellant Versus Nachhattar Singh and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. M.S.Uppal,Advocate for the appellant-claimant. Mr.PS Dhaliwal,Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. Mr.Rajiv Mangla,Advocate for respondent no.3 JASWANT SINGH,J Claimant-mother is in appeal against the award dated 17.4.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mansa (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) whereby claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, filed by her for awarding a compensation of Rs.30,20,000/- on account of death of her unmarried son Sukhwinder Singh, aged 22 years, in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 1.11.2005, was dismissed . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that despite sufficient evidence on record, the learned Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petition by holding that the offending vehicle, Tata Sumo, bearing registration no. PB-31C-3235 was not involved in the accident. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence led by the appellant-claimant (mother), found that the factum of death of her deceased son Sukhwinder Singh, on 1.11.2003 came to the notice of her husband-Chuhar Singh (father of the deceased) one day after the accident when he was telephonically informed that dead body of his deceased FAO 3323 of 2008 - 2- son was lying on Lalluana Road, Mansa. Thereafter, FIR in this case was registered on the next day i.e. 2.11.2003 by said Chuhar Singh, who neither joined as a claimant nor participated in the proceedings despite his having been impleaded as respondent no. 1 in the claim petition as a result of which he was proceeded against ex parte. The learned Tribunal, after scanning the entire material available on the record rightly came to the conclusion that it was a “hit and run case” and in order to get compensation a false case of motor vehicular accident had been projected. Though in order to corroborate the motor vehicular accident theory, padding was done by claimant by producing AW1 Bhupinder Singh Bhola, a rickshaw puller according to whom Nachhatar Singh-the driver of the offending vehicle had approached him to make him surrender before the police for having caused the accident. However, considering the influence a rickshaw puller would wield over police, so as to make an accused surrender before the police, and the fact that it could not be conclusively proved that Nachhatar Singh was the driver of the offending vehicle, the learned Tribunal rightly rejected the version of said AW1 Bhupinder Singh @ Bhola and held that it was concocted story just to get compensation in a blind hit and run case. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. No ground to interfere with the impugned award is made out. Dismissed in limine. 16.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge