IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO 525/2009 Date of Decision: 30.4.2009. Gulab and others ..........Appellants Versus Sandeep Dua and another ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Ms. Sharmila Sharma,Advocate for the appellants. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). On 26.2.2005 at 8.30 a.m., deceased Naresh, aged 22 years, was riding motorcycle bearing no. HR-06-J-4520. When he reached near Kanshigir Mandir, Sonoli Road, Panipat, a white coloured Maruti Gypsy bearing no. CH-01-GA-0569 hit him from behind as a result of which he fell down and received grievous injuries. He was firstly taken to Civil Hospital and thereafter referred to PGIMS, Rohtak where he succumbed to his injuries. Appellants- his parents, widow, brother and sister- filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1998 (for short the Act), seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs from respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing no. HR-06-J-4520 instead of Maruti Gypsy bearing no.CH-01-GA-0569. The claim petition was dismissed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short the Tribunal) on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove the factum of accident. Hence the present appeal. Heard learned counsel and perused the impugned award. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Trial erred in FAO 525/2009 2 dismissing the claim petition as sufficient evidence had been adduced to prove that deceased Naresh died in a motor vehicular accident while riding the offending vehicle. I find no merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the impugned award shows that though FIR under Sections 270/304-A IPC , registered at PS Chandni Bagh,Panipat was produced as Exhibit P1, however, Tilak Raj Chhabra, at whose instance the said FIR was lodged, for the reasons best known to the claimants, had not been examined. Undoubtedly, the claim petition having been filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the claimants-appellants were not required to prove the negeligence. However, at the same, learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute that in order to succeed in the claim petition, the claimants were required to prove (i) factum of accident, (ii) use of motor cycle in question; and (iii) factum regarding death of the deceased in the said accident. It has also not been disputed that claimants failed to examine any witness who could prove the aforesaid three ingredients necessary for allowing their claim petition. In the absence of any evidence, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal had no option but to dismiss the claim petition and no fault can be found with the same. No merit. Dismissed. 30.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge