FAO No. 1947 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 1947 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.7.2010 Smt. Rakesh Kumari and others ... Appellants vs Hanuman and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S. K. Yadav, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”). The brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 15/16.9.2006 at about 2 a.m., Rambir Singh, who was 33 years of age, was going to his village on his motorcycle. When he reached near Sahibi river on National Highway No. 8 and was in the area of village Masani, Tehsil and District Rewari, a truck bearing registration no. HR-47-A-6405, driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck against the motorcycle of Rambir Singh, as a result of which, Rambir Singh fell down and suffered multiple injuries on his head and other vital parts of the body. He was taken to Raman Munjal Hospital and then to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. where he succumbed to his injuries on 4.10.2006. The occurrence was seen by Dalip Singh. FIR No. 238 dated 17.9.2006 was registered with Police Station, Dharuhera. The claimants filed petition before the learned Tribunal which was dismissed as they failed to prove that the accident was caused by the truck. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition by observing that the appellants have failed to prove that the accident is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of truck in question. It was submitted that the appellants had proved the accident beyond shadow of doubt by examining PW3 Dalip Singh who was eye witness to the accident and PW2 Vinod Kumar, who was following the deceased Rambir Singh on another motorcycle. Inspite of presence of cogent and convincing evidence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. It was prayed that findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in this regard be set aside and the compensation assessed be awarded to the appellants. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paper-book. FAO No. 1947 of 2009 -2- A perusal of the impugned award shows that the claimants have not proved the accident in question. In his examination-in-chief PW2 Vinod Kumar, who is brother-in-law of the deceased (Jija), stated that at the time of accident they were moving on their separate motorcycles and at about 2.00 a.m., they were near Sahibi river on National Highway No. 8. It was stated that when he reached at the turning towards Rewari, he saw that Rambir Singh was not following him and then he turned back and at a distance of about 200 meters from the place from where he turned back, he saw a person lying injured. It was further stated that when he went close to that person, he found that person to be Rambir Singh, who stated that he suffered injuries on being hit by a truck bearing registration No. HR-47-A-6405, driven by Hanuman, in a rash and negligent manner. It is clear from his examination-in-chief itself that he had not seen the accident rather he has been told about the accident by the deceased which he admitted in his cross-examination. At the time of lodging of FIR, this witness did not disclose the identity of the driver or the description of the offending vehicle rather he lodged the FIR with the version that some unknown vehicle had hit the deceased at his back. The testimony of other witness Dalip Singh, who had appeared as PW3, also found not trustworthy by the Tribunal. This witness in his examination- in-chief deposed that he saw the truck in question, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit a motorcycle bearing registration no. AS-01G/2175. He kept following the truck which stopped at Jeetu Hotel and there he came to know the name of the driver as Hanuman son of Ram Singh, a resident of Village Dahina. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that there were no lights on the road at the site of accident. It was also admitted by him that he did not return to the spot of accident after coming to know the name of the driver of the offending vehicle. He could not even tell the names of persons to whom he had given information about the accident. It has also come in his evidence that the police had recorded his statement after one month of the accident. Moreover, the accident took place on the intervening night of 15/16.9.2006 and the injured expired on 4.10.2006. If Rambir Singh was conscious at the time of accident, as has been deposed by PW Vinod Kumar in his testimony, the police would have got his statement recorded to this effect during his treatment in the hospital. As the evidence led by the appellants was not proved to be trustworthy and the accident with the vehicle in question was not proved, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. 14.7.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge