HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.: 106 of 2004 Decided on: 15.7.2009 Sanjay Kumar and others ………Appellants. Versus Balubhai Becharbahi Bhangi and another ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellants: Mr.Rakesh Chandel, Advocate. For respondent No.2: Mr.Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is an appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal, dated 9.1.2004, vide which the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are the appellants as claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of compensation. The allegations made by the petitioners were that the petitioners are the sons, daughter and wife of deceased Om Parkash, who died in an accident with a motorcycle and the date of accident was alleged as 23.4.2001. The age of the deceased was alleged as 55 years. His income was alleged to be Rs.7,350/- per month __________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - and the petitioners being the dependants of the deceased had claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.15.00 lacs. The respondents denied the allegations. The case was tried by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal, vide its impugned findings, held that the petitioners have failed to prove that the accident took place with the motorcycle in question due to its rash or negligent driving. The person who was driving the motorcycle was not impleaded as party. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. On appraisal of the evidence led by the petitioners, it is clear that the petitioners had examined two witnesses to substantiate their case. PW-1 Shri Sanjay Kumar is the son of the deceased, who learnt about the accident and had stated about the income, age etc. of the deceased. He gave the date of death of his father as 26.9.2000, whereas in the claim petition in para 10, the date of accident was alleged as 23.4.2001. However, in para 13, it was mentioned that the deceased remained admitted in PHC Vadodra for 3 days w.e.f. 23.4.2000 to 25.4.2000. Thus, it is clear that the date of death was mentioned earlier, whereas the date of accident has been given after about more than one year. The claim petition was not got amended by the petitioners to clear the ambiguity. However, the son of the deceased, namely, PW-1 Sanjay Kumar has come up with another date as 26.9.2000 of the death of the deceased. PW-2 Deep Singh has admitted in cross examination that he was taking meal in a hotel and when he - 3 - heard noise, he came out of the hotel. The accident had already taken place by that time and Om Parkash had already fallen down. This evidence was found to be unreliable by the learned Tribunal and rightly so. No copy of FIR or any other document has been placed on record to prove the date of accident, the manner in which the accident occurred and no eye witness has been examined to prove that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident or that the accident took place due to the rash or negligent driving of the person who was driving the motorcycle. Number of documents i.e. Exts.P-1 to P-5 have been produced in evidence which are not relevant. Documents Exts.PW-1/A and PW-1/B are also not relevant and they do not prove the date of accident, the manner of the accident or the vehicle involved in the accident. It is, therefore, clear that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding that the petitioners have failed to prove the issue in regard to the rash or negligent driving of the motorcycle by the motorcyclist and the vehicle involved in the accident are based upon correct appreciation of evidence and they call for no interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I hold there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants which is dismissed accordingly. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. July 15, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.