FAO NO. 956 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 956 of 2011 Date of order: 16.11.2011 Smt. Mamta and another ..... Appellants Versus Bachitar Singh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ravinder Singh Budhwar, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.3. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is claimants' appeal against the dismissal of their claim petition by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short 'Tribunal') vide award dated 01.09.2010. The claim petition brought under the provisions of section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short 'the Act') is based on the following averments:- On 31.05.2009 at about 2.00 PM Gurpreet Singh was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-41C/0142 driven by Bachitar Singh, respondent no.1. When they were near the house of one Gurmej Singh, a buffalo came in front of their motorcycle, on account of which, the motorcycle fell on the road. Gurpreet Singh suffered FAO NO. 956 of 2011 -2- injuries on his head and died as a consequence thereof. A report was made to Police Station, Jhansa, which was recorded in Daily Diary at Sr. No.26 on 31.05.2009. Respondents no.1 and 2, the driver and owner respectively of the motorcycle denied the factum of the very accident to have taken place. The claim petition is said to have been filed falsely. Respondent no.3, the insurer has also denied the fact of accident for want of knowledge. It was averred that respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Liability to pay compensation has been denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1- Whether the accident in question took place, as alleged?OPP 2- If issue no.1 is proved, whether Gurpreet Singh died as a result of injuries suffered by him in the accident in question, if so, what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to ?OPP 3- Whether there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and respondent no.3-Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation ?OPR-3 4- Relief” The parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal has found under issue no.1 that the accident is not proved to have taken place on account of the use of motorcycle No.HR-41C/0142. Consequently deciding issue no.1 against the claimants, the claim petition has been dismissed. FAO NO. 956 of 2011 -3- Aggrieved by the award aforesaid, the claimants have brought this appeal. I have heard Shri R.S. Rana, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Ravinder Singh Budhwar, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Shri Tajender K. Joshi, , learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Malkeet Singh,father of the deceased lodged a report with Police Station Jhansa, District Kurukshetra, which was recorded as DDR No.26 on 31.5.2009. According to him, the contents of the same clearly establish that the accident has taken place on account of the use of motorcycle in question. He has further submitted that the police had recorded statement of Bachitar Singh also. He has further submitted that the case had been brought under the provisions of section 163-A of the Act and for its success, it was sufficient to prove that the accident occurred on account of the use of motor cycle in question. Learned counsel for respondent no.3, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no evidence on the record to prove that the accident occurred on account of the use of this motorcycle. According to him, the daily diary report, which was not proved on the record and was just marked as Mark B, was lodged by Malkeet Singh, who did not see the accident in question. No eye witness of the accident has been examined by the claimants. FAO NO. 956 of 2011 -4- First of all, Daily Diary Report mark B itself is not proved. Secondly it was recorded in the police station on the statement of Malkeet Singh, who did not see the accident in question. No evidence apart from it had come on the record to prove the involvement of motorcycle in question in this accident. For these reasons, learned Tribunal was fully justified in reaching the conclusion under issue no.1 that the accident is not proved to have occurred on account of the use of motorcycle in question. Confirming the finding on the said issue, I uphold the award and consequently dismiss the appeal. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 16.11.2011 dinesh