In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 23944-CII of 2009 and F.A.O. No. 2030 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: October 13, 2009 Tripta Devi and others .. Appellants Vs. Mahesh Kumar and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.12.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribuanl, Gurdaspur, (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') dismissing the claim petition, The claimants had alleged that Kewal Singh had died in a motor vehicular accident on account of the fault of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. A brief resume of facts is that on 20.1.2000, Kewal Singh deceased had gone to Sri Nagar in a truck bearing registration No.HP-38- 2698 as a conductor. When he was coming back from Sri Nagar in a truck driven by Mahesh Kumar-respondent No.1, the latter started driving the truck rashly and negligently and struck against the another truck bearing registration No.PB06-2728 going ahead of it. Resultantly both the trucks fell down in a Nallah (ditch) near Dak Bangla Batot. Consequently, Kewal Singh died as a result of the injuries. He was 37 years old. He being conductor was earning Rs.3200/- per month. The claimant being the widow and the minor son have been deprived of their livelihood due to his unfortunate and sudden death. Upon notice, the respondent No.1 despite his service did not put in appearance. The respondent No.3-The New India Insurance Company (herein referred as 'the Company') contested the claim petition by filing reply, wherein, they denied all the allegations and further took the objection, inter alia, that no insurance policy has been produced nor particulars thereof are furnished. The respondents had no valid permit and the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. F.A.O. No. 2030 of 2009 -2- *** Rejoinder was also filed. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether on 20.1.2000 Kewal Singh son of Mahashu Ram died in a road side accident at about 9.00 a.m. with the use of Truck No.HP-38-2698 driven by respondent No.1 which struck against truck No.PB-06-2728 in the area of Dak Bangla Batot (J&K)?OPA 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?OPA 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and genuine driving licence at the time of accident?OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-38-2698 was being plied in contravention of the terms of the insurance policy?OPR-3 5. Relief. In order to substantiate the claim, the claimant Tripta Devi herself stepped into the witness box as AW1 and also examined Ramesh Singh as AW2. To the contrary, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence copy of the insurance policy Ex.R-1 and closed the same. The claimants have primarily banked upon two documents i.e. FIR (Ex.A1) and statement of Ramesh Singh (AW2) in order to prove that Kewal Singh died due to the involvement of the motor vehicle accident. The trial court discarded the FIR mainly on the ground that it was in Urdu script. Neither English nor Punjabi translation of the same was produced on the record. Even if the FIR may be taken as evidence, the same being not proved by its author is liable to be excluded from consideration. Learned counsel for the appellants has also tried to bring on record the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. which is also of no consequence. That cannot prove the accident and it was only the criminal court judgment which could be said to have some value in order to show that the deceased died as a result of accident. F.A.O. No. 2030 of 2009 -3- *** Now coming to the statement of Ramesh Singh (AW2), who is stated to be an eye witness of the occurrence. In his statement he has stated that he was coming in a bus when two trucks were going ahead of him and the truck bearing registration No.HP-38-2698 driven by Mahesh Kumar struck into truck bearing registration No.PB-06-2728. The testimony of Ramesh Singh (AW2) by way of his affidavit Ex.AA, is not sufficient to conclude as to in which vehicle deceased was travelling. In the claim petition it is stated that the truck bearing registration No.PB-06-2728 and truck bearing registration No.HP-38-2698 were involved in the accident, but Ramesh Singh (AW2) has not referred to the truck bearing registration No.PB-06-2728. There is no evidence on the record to show that in which truck the deceased was travelling or in which truck he was travelling. As such, it cannot be said with certainty that deceased died as a result of involvement of the motor vehicle. The Tribunal has elaborately discussed and appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No grounds for interference. Dismissed. October 13, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge