FAO No. 143 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 143 of 1993 Date of decision March 22, 2011 Jeet Kaur and others ....... Appellants Versus Arjan Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- None for the appellants-claimants. Mr. Paul S Saini , Advocate for respondent No.4. None for respondent Nos.1 to 3. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of application for compensation in a claim made for death of first claimant's husband imputing negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor bearing registeration number HYQ 440. The driver and owner had admitted the accident. The Insurance Company set up a plea of collusion between the claimant and owner and driver. 2. The Tribunal, while appreciating the evidence tendered before it on the issue of involvement of the tractor, found that the evidence of PW-3 Jagdev Singh who was said to be an eye witness did not inspire confidence. He had stated in his evidence that the tractor's owner FAO No. 143 of 1993 2 and driver belonged to the same village and although he had seen the accident. He did not report the same either to the police or to any member of the family because he had urgent work. Yet another person PW-2 merely stated that he found that the dead body of his brother was lying at the spot and he had not himself seen the accident. The entry in the DDR was that there had been an accident resulting in death of Shiv Singh by some unknown vehicle. Even the manner of how the accident had taken place has not also been properly explained. The Tribunal found on reading of the postmortem certificate that the face had been completely broken in multiple pieces and there had been fracture of the chest and ribs as well. Even bones of forearm had been fractured. The manner of injuries sustained by the deceased showed that he must have been run over by the wheels of some vehicle and if such an accident had taken place even the bicycle must have come under the vehicle. In such an event, the tractor could not have been driven away without stopping. RW-1 driver who was supporting the claimant stated that the deceased was struck by the tractor and he had seen that the deceased was being accompanied by some persons on the bicycle. If another person had been accompanying the deceased at the time, he would have been injured as well, and if he had survived, he had not tendered any evidence about the accident. 3. The Tribunal has considered the evidence and chosen to dismiss on the ground that the accident with the respondent's vehicle had not been established. I find no reason to take a different view. It shall be open to the claimant to apply to the State for payment by resort to the provisions under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If such a claim is made, the competent authority shall take the death as having resulted in a 'hit and run' situation contemplated by law and may also exclude the time taken by the claimants to prosecute the case before the Tribunal and this Court as a bona fide exercise and award the amount that FAO No. 143 of 1993 3 would become legally due. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with above directions. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 22, 2011 archana