FAO NO.2239 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO.2239 of 2009 Date of decision:17.10.2011 Geeta Devi ...Appellant Versus Wazir Singh and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: None for the appellant. Mr.Surinder Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Sanjay Pabbi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. Heard. The only question involved in the present appeal is that whether the appellant is entitled to get compensation or not on account of death of her son. The accident in question took place on 12.5.2007. In the claim petition, the appellant took the stand that at the time of accident, her son Nehru (since deceased) was driving the motorcycle, whereas his father- respondent No.1 was a pillion rider. The son of the appellant died on 19.5.2007. The DDR in the instant case was lodged on 28.5.2007. The learned Tribunal examined the statements of the witnesses FAO NO.2239 of 2009 2 and pointed out that though it is admitted that the father of the deceased was a pillion rider but there is no evidence, which suggests that in the alleged accident, the father of the deceased suffered any injury. Moreover, the accident took place on 12.5.2007 and DDR was registered on 28.5.2007, after a delay of 16 days. However, there is no satisfactory explanation with regard to the delay in lodging the DDR in spite of the fact that the father of the deceased is a Head Constable. As per the statement of Ishar Singh, PW2, who claimed himself to be an eye-witness, the deceased was taken to the PGIMS, Rohtak for treatment. However, there is no record to establish this fact. In the statements of appellant Geeta, PW1 and respondent No.-1 Wazir Singh, PW3, it has been stated that the deceased was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak and from where he was referred to Delhi. However, no document regarding admission of the deceased in PGIMS Rohtak and referring him from there to Delhi has been brought on record. As per the certificate, Exhibit P-2, issued by Dr.Bal Kishan Goel, Mansarover Hospital, Delhi, there is no mention of injuries sustained by the deceased in the road accident. Besides above, in the DDR, there is no reference that Ishar Singh, PW2, witnessed the accident. No mechanical report as well as photograph of the damaged motorcycle have been produced. Though the motorcycle was insured with respondent No.2, yet no compensation for damage of the vehicle has been sought. These circumstances clearly indicate that no accident in the manner as stated has occurred. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the award of the learned Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is appropriate and well FAO NO.2239 of 2009 3 reasoned and accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 17.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Mks JUDGE