FAO No.5767 of 2002(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.5767 of 2002(O&M) Decided on : September 25, 2009 Smt.Narinder Kaur and others ... Appellants VERSUS Mohinder Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate for the claimants- appellants. Mr.Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 8.2.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, dismissing the petition of the claimants – appellants (herein referred as the claimants) with costs. On 24.6.1998, Lakhwinder Singh while going on a motor cycle in the area of village Manchoori, District Karnal, was hit by truck bearing Reg.No.HRU-8399 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 Mohinder Singh, as a result of which Lakhwinder Singh suffered multiple injuries. He was removed to General Hospital, Karnal, where he succumbed to the injuries. As an aftermath of the accident, the claim petition was filed, which was contested by the Insurance Company by raising preliminary FAO No.5767 of 2002(O&M) [ 2 ] objection, inter-alia, that the deceased was hit by some unknown vehicle and the police falsely challaned respondent No.1, in collusion with the claimants and respondents No.1 and 2. Besides, framing other issues with regard to the liability of accident and quantum of compensation, etc, the following additional issue was also framed with regard to the collusion between the claimants and the driver as well as the owner of the offending truck:- “3-A Whether the claim petition was filed by the petitioners in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2 as alleged, if so to what effect? OPR” To prove this issue, the claimants examined Nawab Singh (PW2), an alleged eye witness of the accident, who supported the version of the claimants. However, he had neither imported the name of the driver nor the registration number of the offending truck in the First Information Report and rather it finds mentioned in the FIR that due to darkness, he could neither see the driver nor registration number of the truck. In the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police mentioned that the respondents No.1 and 2 had confessed their guilt on 25.11.1998 i.e, after a period of five months of the alleged accident. On the basis of the said confession, respondent No.1 was arrested and challaned in the criminal case. It is astonishing, as to how the police came to know about the offending truck involved in the accident after a period of five months of the registration of the First Information Report. As a matter of fact, it is clear-cut case of collusion between the FAO No.5767 of 2002(O&M) [ 3 ] claimant and the driver as well as owner of the alleged offending scooter. Initially, this claim petition was filed by the petitioners through their counsel Shri Amit Arora, Advocate, so also by Sarvshri Daljit Singh Mann had also signed the power of attorney. Shri Amit Arora Advocate continued representing the petitioners in this case throughout till their evidence was closed on 11.10.1999, but abruptly after closure of the evidence, the petitioners changed their counsel. On the perusal of the documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5, produced by respondent No.3, it is apparent that Shri Amit Arora Advocate had been defending the respondent No.1 Mohinder Singh accused in the criminal case. Ex.R3 is a copy of the power of attorney filed by Shri Amit Arora Advocate to defend respondent No.1 Mohinder Singh in the criminal case. Ex.R1 is a copy of application moved by respondent No.2 Harbans Singh seeking release of the offending truck on superdari and this application was also moved by Shri Amit Arora Advocate. Ex.R2 is a copy of the superdarinama furnished by Harbans Singh in the criminal case for taking the offending truck on superdari. Ex.R4 is a bail bond furnished by respondent Mohinder Singh through Shri Amit Arora Advocate. Ex.R5 is a surety bond furnished by one Joginder Singh for respondent No.2 Harbans Singh for release of the offending truck on superdari. Shri Joginder Singh was also identified by Shri Amit Arora, Advocate. All this goes to show that in order to conceal the collusion, Shri Amit Arora took the back seat. As a matter of fact, he appears to be the king-pin behind the whole show. The Trial Court also observed in this regard as under:- Thus, from the above discussed documents, it is clear FAO No.5767 of 2002(O&M) [ 4 ] that Shri Amit Arora Advocate had been defending respondents No.1 and 2 in the criminal case whereas, now he has been fighting this claim petition against respondent No.1 and 2. It is not understandable as to how a counsel who has been defending a party in the criminal case can file a claim petition against the said party. It clearly indicates that the petitioners as well as respondents No.1 and 2 are one and the same thing and they being in hand and glove had engaged the same counsel in the criminal case as well as in this claim petition. From these facts a clear connivance between the petitioners and respondents No.1 and 2 is made out and on account of this fact also the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.” Counsel for the claimants is unable to refute the aforesaid findings returned by the Tribunal by raising any meaningful contention or showing any document. Hence, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. September 25, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE