IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.2815 of 2006(O&M) Decided on : January 09, 2006 Smt.Kiran Bala and Ors. ...Appellants VERSUS Rajesh Chandel and anr. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLR MR.JUSTICE BALDEV SINGH Present: Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate for the appellants. JASBIR SINGH, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been filed against award, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri dated 4.3.2005. The appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to claim compensation on account of death of Shri Angrej Singh. It was their case that Shri Angrej Singh had died in a motor accident on 17.8.2002. It was allegation against respondent No.1 that he had caused that accident when he was driving car bearing No.HR-01M-3584. The Tribunal after looking into the evidence on record found that the version given by the claimants was wrong. It was a case of hit and run and subsequently the car was introduced with a view to get compensation. To say so, reference has been made to the DDR lodged regarding the accident, which has been brought on record as Ex.R-1. The Tribunal has also analysed the statement of Purshotam Dass, eye-witness and found the same to be false. The said witness has stated that he was following Shri Angrej FAO NO.2815 OF 2006(O&M) [ 2 ] Singh on a motor cycle, the offending vehicle after hitting the deceased, when slowed down, he noted its number and then went to his relative. He came back after two days and informed the claimants regarding number of the offending vehicle. The version so put before the Tribunal does not appear to be rational. If Shri Angrej Singh was known to Purshotam Dass, it was natural for him to take the deceased to some hospital. In fact, instead of doing so, he went to meet the relatives, which is against natural human behaviour. The FIR was also lodged at a belated stage. It appears that a case of hit and run has been tried to be converted into a compensation case. The finding recorded by the Tribunal after discussing evidence in paragraphs 11 to 17, does not warrant interference by this court. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE January 09, 2006 ( BALDEV SINGH ) gian JUDGE