FAO No.432 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.432 of 1988 DATE OF DECISION: March 9, 2011 RAM CHANDER ...APPELLANT VERSUS DANA RAM AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: NONE. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for death of a boy aged 10. The claimant was the father. The accident was said to have taken place on 21.4.1983, when the jeep driven by respondent No.1-Dana Ram had dashed against the deceased killing him on the spot. The FIR had referred to the registration of the vehicle as RJF- 1777. At the time of trial, it was stated that the number had been wrongly given and the jeep was driven with a wrong registration number and it transpired that the actual number was RJC-5761. 2. It appears that the driver-respondent No.1 had been arrested by the police nearly six months later on 31.10.1983. The oral evidence relating to the involvement of the vehicle was given through one Ajit Singh who did not know the number of the jeep, but he stated that it was Dana Ram who was driving the jeep at that relevant time. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not know the name of the driver, but he had seen the FAO No.432 of 1988 -2- vehicle hitting against the deceased and speeding away without stopping. PW3 was one Dalip Singh who stated that Dana Ram came to him to confess that he had caused the accident. The Tribunal reasoned that their evidence did not evoke confidence. It also observed that the discrepancy in the registration number as found in the FIR and the registration number that was given for the vehicle alleged to have been involved, had not been properly explained through the police. It, therefore, found that the vehicle's involvement had not been established and proceeded to dismiss the case. 3. I do not find any material to improve the case for the appellant. I have examined the case on the basis of records available, since the appellant is not before the Court, although the case has been on board for final hearing for quite a number of days. 4. Appeal is dismissed. March 9, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE