In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 2531 of 2008 Date of decision: July 17, 2009 Ajaib Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. Harjinder Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Pradeep Goyal, Advocate for Insurance Company. A.N. Jindal, J This appeal is directed against the award dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (herein referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.10.2005, at about 11.30 a.m. at bus stand Bangri Raghu, Shinderpal Kaur boarded mini bus No.PB- 03-L-9097 along with her husband Ajaib Singh. At Bus stand Bangri Nihal Singh Wala, she was in the process of alighting from the bus, the respondent No.1 without taking care that she had alighted from the bus, suddenly started the bus, resultantly, she fell down, came under the rear tyre of the bus and was crushed. DDR No.28 dated 18.10.2005 was registered at Police Station Raman. Subsequently, the legal heirs of Shinderpal Kaur preferred this claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.6 lacs along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization. The respondents contested the petition while denying the allegations, besides it was also submitted that the claim petition is not maintainable as they have no locus standi or cause of action to file the claim petition; Shinderpal Kaur was not the passenger of the alleged offending bus; and the compensation claimed is exorbitant. The respondent No.1, however, further submitted that he was holding a valid driving licence at the F.A.O. No. 2531 of 2008 -2- *** time of accident. The respondent No.2 submitted that he was having valid registration and route permit on the day of accident and the bus was insured with respondent No.3, whereas, the respondent No.3 also denied the accident and further submitted that the deceased was not less than 55 yeas of age and she was only a house wife, as such, she was not earning anything. It was also pleaded that if the accident in question is proved, then the same was on account of the fault on the part of the deceased herself. The respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence, therefore, the insurance company was not liable. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether death of Shinderpal Kaur took place on 18.10.2005 at 11.30 p.m. at Bus stand Bangi Nihal Singh in road accident arising out of the use of Mini Bus NO.PB-03-L-9097 as alleged? If so, its effect?OPP 2. Whether claimants being L.Rs. of deceased are entitled to compensation, if so from whom and for how much amount?OPP 3. Whether there is violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy Cover note as alleged?OPR-3 4. Whether respondent No.1 not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident as alleged? If so its effect?OPR-3 5. Whether claim petition is bad due to misjoinder of necessary parties as alleged?OPR 1 & 2. 7. Relief. In order to substantiate its claim the claimant, Ajiab Singh himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and examined PW Darshan Singh and after tendering into evidence copy of the DDR Ex.P2 and post mortem report Ex.P-1 closed their evidence. However, no evidence was led by the respondents. F.A.O. No. 2531 of 2008 -3- *** In order to succeed in the application under Section 163-A of the Act, it was obligatory on the part of the claimants to establish that Shinderpal Kaur died as a result of involvement of the motor vehicle. Out of the two witnesses examined by the claimants Darshan Singh (PW2) admitted that he was not present at the time of accident, as such, he has no personal knowledge regarding the same, as such, he is hardly helpful to establish if Shinderpal Kaur died due to involvement of the motor vehicle. Now I am left with the testimony of Ajaib Singh (PW1) who allegedly was present at the time of accident. In cross examination, he has stated that he does not know the number of the bus. He also did not give the number of the bus and name of the driver in the DDR Ex.P2. About the name of the driver he has given contradictory statement while stating that the name of the driver was Balwinder Singh which statement is contradicted by the claim petition as the person impleaded as driver was Harjinder Singh and not Balwinder Singh. Thus, inference would be drawn that the accident took place with the bus which was driven by Balwinder Singh and not with the bus driven by Harjinder Singh as pleaded in the claim petition. No definite evidence has come forth in order to establish if Shinderpal Kaur died on account of rash and negligent act of Harjinder Singh. As such the Tribunal was right in holding that the claimants have failed to establish if Shinderpal Kaur died as a result of involvement of the bus in question. The findings returned by the Tribunal appear to be well founded and well reasoned, which do not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. July 17, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge