IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.1017 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.5.2009. Kamlesh and others ..........Appellants Versus Rajpal Singh and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Kartar Singh Malik-I,Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Dinesh Arora,Advocate for respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2. Mr.VM Gupta,Advocate for respondent no.3-Insurance Company. JASWANT SINGH,J CM No.6896-CII/2008 CM allowed. Documents Annexures P1 and P2 taken on record. FAO NO.1017/2008. Appellants-claimants,being the widow and minor sons of deceased Raghbir Singh have filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 28.11.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing their claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs on account of death of Raghbir Singh in a motor vehicular accident. In the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, it was case of the appellants that on 21.8.2004 at about 8 pm deceased Raghbir Singh was coming from his fields on his bicycle and on reaching Jind Road, Rohtak, when he was passing through Kalanaur Canal Bridge, a three wheeler bearing registration no.HR- FAO No.1017 of 2008 2 46-A-8035 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) overtook a truck from behind and struck against the bicycle of the deceased as a result of which Raghbir Singh fell down, sustained injuries and died at the spot. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. FIR No.217 (Ex.P1) was recorded in respect of the said accident against unknown vehicle and unknown driver. Upon notice of the claim petition respondent no.1 being owner of the offending vehicle contested the claim on the ground of mis-joinder of necessary parties alleging that he had already sold the offending vehicle to one Ishwar Singh son of Balwant Singh. It was further denied respondent no.2 was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident under his employment. Respondent no.2 in his written statement admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident but denied negligence and stated that deceased himself came in front of the offending vehicle without giving any signal and hence he could not be blamed for the accident. He also took the stand that at the time of accident Ishwar Singh son of Balwant Singh was the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent no.3-i.e. the Insurance Company took the stand that claimants have filed the claim petition in collusion with respondents 1 and 2 and that it was not liable to satisfy the award as terms and conditions of the insurance policy had not been complied with. Rest of the averments made in the claim petition were denied. It may be noticed here that after filing written statement admitting the factum of accident, driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent no.2 did not join proceedings and was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 5.9.2007. With regard to the alleged collusion between claimants and respondents FAO No.1017 of 2008 3 1 and 2 no rejoinder was filed. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Claimants and respondents 1 and 3 led evidence in support of their respective claim. On the basis of material available on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the claim petition was result of collusion between the claimants and respondents 1 and 2. Hence the present appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the claim petition was a result of collusion between the claimants and respondents 1 and 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the impugned award shows that issue No.5-A was framed to the following effect:- “5A Whether the present petition is the result of collusion between the petitioner and respondent no.1 and 2. If so to what effect? OPR.” In order to succeed in their claim, appellants examined PW1 Karan Singh (brother of deceased Raghbir Singh) alleged eye witness. It was stated by him that he had witnessed the accident from a distance of half kilometre. When he reached the spot his brother had become unconscious while respondent no.2 had run away from the spot alongwith offending vehicle. He is reported to have sent a message through a Villager upon which FIR No.217 dated 22.8.2004 was recorded. It may be reiterated here that the accident was alleged to have taken place on 21.8.2004 at about 8 pm and the deceased was alleged to have died at the spot. The learned Tribunal, upon perusal of the FIR (Ex.P1) found stark contradictions in the case set up in the claim petition. In the FIR, it was stated by PW1 Karan Singh that FAO No.1017 of 2008 4 accident had been caused by some truck which came from Jind side and fled towards Rohtak. It was further stated by him that after seeing the accident he rushed to his house to inform his family members and in the meanwhile some unknown persons got his brother admitted in PGIMS Rohtak. In order to resolve the said contradiction, supplementary statement allegedly recorded by the police on 27.10.2004, i.e. after a period of two months, was placed on record. It is in this statement that name of the driver and description of the offending vehicle was given. It is in these circumstances that the learned Tribunal rightly disbelieved the testimony of PW1 Karan Singh. The stand of respondent no.3-Insurance Company that the claim petition was a result of collusion between the claimants and respondents 1 and 2 is corroborated by the initial admission of respondent no.2 about accident having been caused by him and his subsequent non-joining the proceedings. All this goes to show that the claim petition was in fact a result of collusion, and no fault can be found with regard to said finding of the Tribunal. No other point has been raised. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed. 18.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge