IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1112 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:25.02.2011 Sukhpal and others ....Appellants versus Baljeet Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for a claim of compensation. The accident was said to have taken place on 11.09.1998 (afternoon). The eyewitness to the accident was stated to be the son. According to him, the accident had taken place when his mother was returning to her village after getting medicines from Hassanpur and when she was sitting under the tree and when she was speaking to her son,the truck dashed against the mother and sped off. This narration was found to be untrustworthy by the Tribunal on several factors; (i) there had been a discrepancy about when the vehicle was seized; (ii) how he came to know about the name of the driver; (iii) why he did not refer to the registration number of the vehicle when he was a personal witness; (iv) how a person, who was said to have collected the details of the name of the driver, was not examined; and (v) the names of persons,who were FAO No.1112 of 2000 (O&M) - 2 - said to have given details of the ownership of the vehicle which was involved in the accident. Besides all this, there was unexplained facts as to how the son, who was talking to his mother under the tree escaped totally unhurt even while his mother was crushed to death. There were little too many incongruities from the narration to what could have been the truth if the accident had taken place in the manner spoken to by the son. The Tribunal, therefore, inferred that it must have been a case of hit-and-run when the identity of the vehicle was not traced. The reasoning of the Tribunal was well made and I do not find any justification in taking a different view. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. The appellants shall have a remedy if they so choose to resort to by applying to the State Government for assistance under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If such an application is moved, this judgment itself may be taken as proof of the fact that the mother died in a motor accident and if there is a provision for making the claim within a specified time, the fact that the claimants were prosecuting the case before the Tribunal and before this Court might be taken as justification for waiving the requirement of time and proceed to disburse the compensation without any further delay. 2. The appeal is dismissed, but subject to the observations made above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.02.2011 sanjeev