FAO No. 485 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 485 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 5.2.2010 Baljodh Singh & another .......... Appellants Versus Kulwant Kaur & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for the appellants. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle has been filed against the award dated 3.11.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal”), vide which petition filed under Section 166 /140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act”), stands allowed. The claimants sought compensation on account of death of Surinderpal Singh in a motor vehicular accident. The pleaded case of the claimants was, that on 22.2.2005 at about 5.30 P.M., Hargobind Singh AW along with his relative AW Baltej Singh were going to Kotkapura in a car. When they reached ahead of drain towards Kotkapura from Faridkot, they saw that deceased Surinderpal Singh was going ahead on motor cycle No. PB29-B-9680. Offending car No. PB04-F-0131, which was driven rashly and negligently struck against the motor cycle of the deceased from behind as a result of which he fell down FAO No. 485 of 2010 2 on the road and suffered injuries on his head. Driver of the offending car fled away with his vehicle. One Jaskakran Singh took the injured to GGS Medical College, Faridkot, where he died. The appellants denied accident. The stand taken was that eye witness had given the number of offending vehicle as 131, but lateron appellants were falsely implicated. It was also the case of the appellants that case under Section 304-A IPC was wrongly registered against the appellants as the cancellation report was submitted, however, subsequently charge- sheet was framed under the pressure of the claimants. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding of fact, that Surinderpal Singh died in a vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving of car No. PB-04F-0131 driven by respondent No.1, and the claimants were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,32,300/- (Rupees fourteen lac thirty two thousand and three hundred only) along with interest @ 7% per annum. The learned counsel for the appellants contended, that the finding of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is outcome of misreading of evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the statement of the eye witnesses, to contend that the number of the vehicle was only mentioned as 131 and description of the vehicle was given as Maruti 800 of white colour. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore was, that reading of cross-examination of AW-3 shows, that he did not know the complete number of the vehicle. There was, thus, false implication of the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants also referred to the FAO No. 485 of 2010 3 statement of AW-4, another eye witness, who is alleged to have seen the occurrence from a distance of 150 yards. He could not tell as to which side of the car had struck against the motor cycle. This according to the learned counsel for the appellant, showed that the findings of the learned Tribunal were based on conjectures and surmises and not on positive evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the statement of the wife of deceased to contend, that in her statement she stated that she came to know about the accident only at the time of bhog ceremony, whereas the other witnesses, had deposed that they informed her on telephone about the accident. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, was that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 cannot be sustained. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The claim petition is decided on probabilities. The positive evidence led by the eye witnesses proved the accident. There was no enmity between the claimants and the appellants, to falsely implicate them, specially when the vehicle involved in accident is not insured. It may further be noticed, that the type of vehicle and number was given, which was correct. The complete number might have not been noted at that time. The evidence of eye witnesses, coupled with the fact that the appellant driver is facing trial in Criminal Court, leaves no manner of doubt to conclude that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, cannot be said to be perverse or the one which could not be arrived on probabilities. Merely certain discrepancies in the statement of witnesses do FAO No. 485 of 2010 4 not lead to a conclusion that the findings by the learned Tribunal are arbitrary or impossible to be arrived at on appreciation of evidence. No ground, therefore, is made out to interfere with the finding on issue No.1 or with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. No merit. Dismissed. 5.2.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE