IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 517 of 2005 Dhan Singh Manral and 6 others .. Appellants. Vs. Umesh Chandra Balutia & another ..Respondents. Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. B.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. Dated: 01-05-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27-9-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Nainital, in MACT Case No. 35 of 2005. 2- Brief facts of the case, according to the claimants/appellants, are that on 15-10-2004 Sangeeta Manral after finishing her routine work of Beautician Teacher, was returning to her home from Canal Road, Kathgodam. At about 6.30 P.M. Fiat Car bearing registration No. C.H.-01-C-9006 came there from Haldwani side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed Smt. Sangeeta Manral, due to which she fell in the canal and blown in the flow of water. She was brought out of the water by the villagers at a distance of two kilometers and she was rushed to the Haldwani Hospital, where she was declared dead. The Villagers did not permit her post mortem therefore after inquest her dead body was cremated. The report of the accident was lodged at P.S. Haldwani on 1.11.2004. According to 2 the claimants the deceased was a graduate and she used to assist her family. The claimants filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 9,05,000/-. 3- The Opposite Party No.1, owner of Fiat Car C.H. 01-C-9006, filed written statement before the Tribunal and alleged that the deceased had died due to falling in the canal. His Fiat Car did not involve in any accident. However, he has alleged that his car driver was having valid driving license and it was insured with New India Assurance Company. 4- The New India Assurance Company also filed written statement before the Tribunal and alleged that the death of the deceased was not occurred in a motor accident. The ill-fated car was being driven against the terms of insurance policy. 5- The Tribunal framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, the claimants adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The Opposite Parties also filed documentary evidence. The Tribunal after having considered the evidence on record, and hearing learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the death of Sangeeta has not occurred in the motor accident as alleged by the claimants and the claimants were not entitled to get any compensation, and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. 6- Feeling aggrieved the claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court. 7- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 8- The only point for determination in this appeal is as to whether Km. Sangeeta has died in the motor accident as alleged by the claimants in their claim petition or she has died a natural death?. 9- Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not believing the evidence adduced by the claimants regarding the death of deceased in a motor accident. He also contended that the Tribunal has given hypothetical reasons for rejecting the claim and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 10- On the other hand learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the above submissions and contended that the claimants have failed to prove the death of the deceased in a motor accident and the petition has been preferred in order to grab money in the shape of compensation for the natural death of the deceased. 11- I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record. 12- On behalf of the claimants two witnesses viz. P.W.1, Dan Singh Manral and P.W.2, Mahesh Rana, have been produced. P.W.1, Dan Singh Manral, is not an eye witness of the accident. This witness has filed the written report at the Police Station, Kathgodam after 15 days of the alleged accident. P.W.2, Mahesh Rana is said to be an eye witness of the accident. This witness has stated that on the date of accident the Fiat Car C.H. 01- C-9006 in a rash and negligent manner dashed Km. 4 Sangeeta Manral and she fell bouncing in the canal and she was taken out from the Canal at a distance of about two kilometers by the people of other village and she was declared dead in Soban Singh Jeena Hospital, Haldwani. This person is also the witness of Panchnama. In the Panchnama cause of death has not been mentioned. Even there is no mention that Km. Sangeeta Manral was involved in a motor accident and this fact goes to the root of the testimony of P.W.2, Manish Rana, the so called eyewitness of the accident. Had the death of Km. Sangeeta Manral was caused due to pushing her in the Canal by the Fiat Car, the same should have been noted in the Panchnama by the Panches. Further, the report has been lodged on 1-11-2004, after about 15 days of the alleged accident. No plausible explanation has been put forth by the complainant in his statement. He simply said that he could lodge the report after coming out of the mental shock of the death of his daughter. 13- It is also important to mention here that the written report was lodged by P.W.1, Dan Singh Manral and admittedly he was not at the spot. This witness in the written report has mentioned the number of the Fiat Car and has also alleged that the driver of the car had fled away from the spot with his car, but source of information, has not been disclosed either in the said written report and in his deposition before the Tribunal. P.W.2, Mahesh Rana, who himself said to be the eyewitness of the accident, has also not told in his statement that he had the occasion to note down the number of the alleged Fiat Car. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that he instead of going to Police Station to lodge the report went with Km. Sangeeta Manral. He has nowhere alleged that he had informed the informant about the particulars of the Fiat Car. 5 14- In this particular case, it has also come on record that no criminal case was instituted against the driver of the alleged Fiat Car, therefore, no site plan of the place of alleged accident could be prepared and this fact could not be brought on record that what was the distance between the road and the canal at the spot, and was there any possibility of the deceased to bounce in the canal after hitting with the car or not?. The most glaring factor in the case is that post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was not conducted and this lapse on the part of the claimants also goes against them. 15- I find that the Tribunal in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased has died due to her natural death anyhow felling in the Canal and it was not an accidental death, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to get compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, in lieu of her death. 16- For the discussion made above, I also come to the conclusion that the deceased Km. Sangeeta Manral has died her natural death, anyhow felling in the canal and her death was not the result of motor accident, hence the claimants are not entitled to get compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The point is decided accordingly against the claimants/appellants and in favour of the opposite parties/respondents. 17- Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6 18- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 27-9-2005 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB