FAO No.4507 of 2007 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 20.02.2008. Ram Parsad and another ... Appellants Versus Anil Kumar and others ... Respondents Present: Mr.RD Yadav, Advocate,for the appellants. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The present appeal arises out of impugned award dated 15.09.2007 passed by the learned M.A.C.T., Rewari., whereby the claim petition filed by the present appellant-claimants has been dismissed. The claim petition has been dismissed on the following two counts: (i) That the claimants have failed to prove the occurrence; and (ii) That the claimants had earlier filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has been withdrawn without liberty to file afresh petition, second petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is not maintainable. FAO No.4507 of 2007 -2- The learned Tribunal has framed as many as six issues. Issue No.1 is reproduced as under:- 1. Whether Subhash son of Ram Parshad died in a motor vehicular accident as caused by respondent No.1 by driving the Canter bearing No.RJ-14- 2G/0318 in a rash and negligent manner as alleged? OPP Burden to prove this issue was upon the claimants. Petitioner Ram Parsad appeared as a witness and tendered copy of the statement of Het Ram Ex.PA, Copy of the FIR Ex.PB, Copy of the Post Mortem Report Ex.PC, Copy of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.PD and copy of inquest Report Ex.PG. On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered in evidence the copy of the Insurance Policy Cover Note Ex.R-1. No evidence whatsoever has been led to establish the occurrence. Even the Investigating Officer who investigated the First Information Report and filed the Charge-Sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has not been produced as a witness. The Tribunal, accordingly, came to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to establish the occurrence and rightly so. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has not been able to show any legal evidence to prove the occurrence. It is also admitted case of the appellants that earlier they filed a claim petition which was withdrawn without seeking any liberty to file a fresh claim petition. The FAO No.4507 of 2007 -3- second petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is also not maintainable. Even if the second petition is held to be maintainable, the claimants have failed to establish the occurrence. I find no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned award. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 20.02.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/NO