IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.664 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision:24.12.2010 Smt. Asha Rani and another ....Appellants versus Ashok Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Vinod Choudhry, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the claim for compensation for death of a 28 year old pillion rider in a scooter, who was alleged to have been knocked down by a maruti car from behind. One Krishan Lal and Gulab Chand were said to have followed the scooter in their own motor bike and the case stood on their alleged eye witness account. The deceased was said to be running a business in general stores at Thenesar and the claimants were widow, minor son and parents of the deceased. The petition for compensation at their instance failed, on a finding by the Tribunal that the involvement of the insured’s vehicle had not been established. The driver of the Maruti car had given FAO No.664 of 2003 (O&M) - 2 - evidence that the vehicle on going through the road, happened to see the deceased already injured in a motor accident and his involvement was merely to take the person in a precarious condition to the hospital and to save him. 2. Krishan Chand was alleged to have made a complaint to the police on the basis of which the police registered the case and the criminal trial is still in progress. The complaint however read as though an unknown vehicle had come from behind hit the scooter and sped away. Gulab Chand was also reported to have given a statement under section 161 CrPC and there was merely a reference by him also as though an unknown vehicle had caused the accident. The accident had taken place on 26.11.2001 but only on 5.1.2002 for the first time, Gulab Chand had introduced the name of the driver as Ashok Kumar and he was arrested on 26.2.2002. The driver of the alleged offending vehicle stated that the police falsely challaned him after 2/3 months. 3. Dealing with the evidence of parties, the Tribunal noted that Gulab Chand stated in examination in chief that he had noted the registration number of the car at the spot and told the same to the police. In cross-examination, he stated that the police apprehended Ashok Kumar after half an hour to ¾ hours. He further stated that he himself chased the offending vehicle and apprehended Ashok Kumar at bus stand Pipli. Krishan Chawla’s statement had been recorded at 9 pm and there was no mention of the type of offending vehicle, its registration number or name of its driver in the statement. In the cross examination, he had stated that he had left for the police station after leaving Gulab Chand at FAO No.664 of 2003 (O&M) - 3 - the spot. The Tribunal reasoned that if Gulab Chand remained at the spot, there was no way that he could have chased the driver and apprehended him. The Tribunal further observed that even the statement of the witnesses that the driver of the car came to the wrong side of the road and hit the scooter from behind could not be true, because, if the scooter and the car were going in the same direction, the car could not be in the wrong side, unless the scooter was also being driven on the wrong side. 4. The Tribunal has considered the factual issues correctly. The learned counsel relies on several decisions that say that registration of FIR and lodging a criminal case itself are sufficient prima facie evidence before the Tribunal. In this case, the FIR itself does not record the involvement of the maruti car. The registration of the complaint and levying a charge sheet against the driver are certainly material, but there must be some modicum of credible evidence suggesting the involvement of the vehicle before the Tribunal. The evidence placed through versions of the Gulab Chand and Krishan Chawla were ridden with innumerable artificialities and inconsistencies, that find reasoned well in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment. 5. The dismissal of the petition does not require any intervention in appeal. The claimants could only be entitled to ex gratia payment from the fund constituted under section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If such an application is filed, there is no requirement for the competent authority to look for evidence that the death was the result of a motor accident and that it was a hit and run case. The authorities FAO No.664 of 2003 (O&M) - 4 - shall also not hold the issue of limitation against the claimants. The petitioners' claim, if it is made' shall be entertained favourably under the terms of the scheme. 6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 24.12.2010 sanjeev