FAO No.5834 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5834 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.09.2011 The National Insurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Desho Devi and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate, for the appellant. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, assailing the Award dated 18.07.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the compensation of `6,16,000/- has been awarded to claimant No.1-Smt. Desho Devi. Learned counsel contends that the story regarding the manner of accident put forward by the claimants is highly improbable and the accident has not occurred in the manner described by them. Gurnam Singh, the author of the FIR, has not been examined. He refers to the statement of Karamvir Singh, PW-2, the pillion rider, who specifically states that immediately after the accident, he made a statement on the spot to the Police and gave the number of the offending vehicle. But, the number of the vehicle is not reflected in the FIR. Learned counsel argued that in view of 1 FAO No.5834 of 2011 the material contradictions in the FIR lodged by Gurnam Singh, who was not examined to prove the case of the claimants and the number of the offending vehicle given by Karamvir Singh, the pillion rider, not being reflected in the FIR, go to prove that it is a case of ‘hit and run’ and the offending vehicle was falsely introduced in order to secure compensation. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. There is no dispute that the deceased Sandeep, and Karamvir, the pillion rider, were going from Village Sura towards Village Rattangarh Majra, District Yamuna Nagar, and met with an accident on the way. Karamvir Singh, the eye-witness of the accident, has appeared and supported the case of the claimants and has made a specific averment that he gave the number of the offending vehicle to the Police on the spot. However, even if the number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR, that deficiency is attributable to the Investigating Officer, for which the claimants cannot be allowed to suffer. There is no evidence on record that Investigating Officer was negligent or acted in a partisan manner. Learned counsel has failed to point out any infirmity in the Award. I have carefully rescanned the entire evidence and find no reason, which calls for interference by this Court. In view of the above, this appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 12.09.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 2