IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No.3565 of 2006 Date of Decision : April 01, 2010 Smt. Parkasho Devi and others ....Appellants Versus Subash and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 ex parte Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. T.P.S. MANN, J. By a common judgment, the Court intends to dispose of the present appeal and F.A.O. No.3566 of 2006 titled 'Smt. Mahesh and others Vs. Subash and others' as both of them have arisen out of the same accident and the claim petitions filed by each set of appellants were consolidated by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonipat and decided by a common award dated 2.5.2006. Vide impugned award, learned Tribunal held that the claim F.A.O. No.3565 of 2006 -2- petitions were not based on truthful version. From the evidence led on record, it stood proved that neither the vehicle nor the driver was directly involved in the accident in question. The case was of 'hit and run' and, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the claim petitions were dismissed. The appellants, while filing their respective claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, had averred that on 14.1.2005 the two deceased, namely, Ram Singh and Jai Singh had gone to M/s Suman Service Station, G.T. Road, Biswan Meel for getting petrol in their motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-10-D-2745. The motorcycle was driven by Ram Singh whereas Jai Singh was the pillion rider. It was alleged that when they proceeded towards village Badh Malik after getting petrol and were crossing the 20th Mile Chowk on G.T. Road, a tanker No.HR-GA-1834 being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently came from Delhi side and struck the motorcycle driven by deceased Ram Singh, which resulted in their fall on the road causing serious injuries to both of them. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 succeeded in running away from the spot after causing the said accident alongwith above said tanker. Jai Singh and Ram Singh injured were removed to Civil Hospital, Sonipat where they were declared dead. The post-mortem on the dead bodies of Jai Singh and Ram Singh was conducted in Civil Hospital, Sonipat. A case vide FIR No.15 dated 15.1.2005 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was F.A.O. No.3565 of 2006 -3- registered at Police Station, Rai on the statement made by Ram Kumar. It was also pleaded that this accident was caused solely due to negligence on the part of respondent No.1 who was driving the offending vehicle, which was owned by respondent No.2 and was insured with respondent No.3 and as such, all the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In their written statement, respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the driver of the motorcycle was careless while crossing the G.T. Road and also did not observe the traffic rules, whereas respondent No.1 came driving the tanker at a normal speed. It was further submitted that the driver of the motorcycle lost his control over the vehicle and hit the same with the tanker being driven by respondent No.1 and a false case was got registered against him in collusion with the local police. It was denied by them that respondent No.1 confessed his guilt before Kuldeep that the accident was caused by him. The entire story propounded by the appellants was false and frivolous. Respondents No.1 and 2 denied the remaining averments also and prayed for dismissal of the petitions. Respondent No.3-Oriental Insurance Company Limited also filed its written statement submitting therein that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. Respondent No.3 had also taken up all the pleas available to it F.A.O. No.3565 of 2006 -4- under Sections 134(c), 147, 149 and 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also submitted that since it was a case of hit and run, as such, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim petitions. Learned Tribunal had framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash or negligent act on the part of respondent No.1 by driving vehicle No.HR-10-GA-1834 on 14.1.2005 on G.T. Road within the jurisdiction of P.S. Rai resulting in the death of Ram Singh and Jai Singh as alleged in the petitions ? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom ? OPP. 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time and on the date of accident ? If so its effect ? OPR. 4. Relief. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and the records with their able assistance. The claimants had produced PW1 Ram Kumar and PW2 Kuldeep Singh in order to establish that it was Subash-respondent No.1, F.A.O. No.3565 of 2006 -5- who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and because of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place. However, while appearing as PW1, Ram Kumar deposed that he was present at Suman Service Station, Rai and talking to its owner Jagbir, when, in the meantime, his brother Jai Singh, alongwith his friend Ram Singh, came there on motor cycle No. HR10D-2743 and after getting the petrol filled, left towards Sonipat. At that time, the motor cycle was being driven by Ram Singh while Jai Singh was riding the pillion seat. After 8-10 minutes, he also started for Sonipat in Maruti Car owned by Jagbir Singh. When he reached the crossing of 20th mile stone, he saw his brother Jai Singh and Ram Singh lying in injured condition on the road as both of them had met with an accident caused by some unknown vehicle. Both the injured were shifted to the hospital but on the way Jai Singh had succumbed to his injuries. From the above evidence of PW1 Ram Kumar, it cannot be held that the accident in question was caused by Subash-respondent No.1 while driving tanker No. HR-GA-1834. The accident had already taken place when PW1 Ram Kumar reached the spot where he saw his brother Jai Singh and Ram Singh lying injured. According to PW2 Kuldeep Singh, on 3.3.2005, Subash- respondent No.1 came to him at his dhaba and confessed that the accident, which had taken place on 14.1.2005 wherein Jai Singh and Ram Singh lost their lives, had taken place with his vehicle, i.e. tanker F.A.O. No.3565 of 2006 -6- bearing No. HR-GA-1834 and he was rash and negligent in driving the same. He further stated that he was feeling guilty due to the accident because both the deceased persons, namely, Jai Singh and Ram Singh were known to his employer Jagbir Singh and due to fear of his job, he could not apprise Jagbir Singh earlier that the accident had taken place due to his negligence. Admittedly, the accident had taken place on 14.1.2005 whereas Subash-respondent No.1 confessed his guilt on 3.3.2005. In FIR Ex.P1 lodged at the instance of PW1 Ram Kumar, none had been named as the driver of the offending vehicle. Neither the police knew as to who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident nor PW1 Ram Kumar and Jagbir Singh had any indication that it was Subash-respondent No.1, who had caused the accident. Therefore, Subash-respondent No.1 had no reason to confess his guilt and, that too, after a period of two months from the accident. According to PW2 Kuldeep Singh, he was running a dhaba on behalf of Jagbir Singh, owner of the offending tanker and a neighbour of PW1 Ram Kumar. His dhaba was adjacent to the petrol pump. It appears that PW1 Ram Kumar was able to seek assistance from Jagbir Singh for showing the involvement of his tanker so that the legal heirs of the two deceased could secure compensation from the insurance company with which the alleged offending vehicle stood insured. F.A.O. No.3565 of 2006 -7- The Tribunal had held that the claim petitions were not based on truthful versions. Neither the alleged offending vehicle nor Subash-respondent No.1 was directly involved in the accident in question. There was apparently a collusion between known persons in order to extract compensation from the insurer of the vehicle, which was not involved in the accident. It was a case of 'hit and run' and, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter. After going through the evidence available on the file, I concur with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal that it was a case of 'hit and run' and, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant any relief to the claimants. Resultantly, both the appeals, i.e. FAO Nos. 3565 and 3566 of 2006 are dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) April 01, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1