IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2138 of 2009 Date of decision:- 29.07.2009. Jitender and another ...Appellants Versus Narender Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. A.N.JINDAL J. This appeal has arisen out of the order dated 28.02.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as Tribunal) dismissing the claim petition preferred by the appellants-claimants (hereinafter referred as claimants). On 11.12.2006 at around 9.00 p.m. Pinki wife of claimant No.1-Jitender and mother of claimant No.2-Vinay Kumar respectively stepped down from a Haryana Roadways bus near Sidhrawali College. When she started moving towards the road then a maruti car bearing No.HR-66T-1036 being driven by its driver-respondent No.1 came and struck against them, resultantly, Pinki suffered injuries and died at the spot. Hence, FIR was lodged, case was investigated, and consequently, respondent No.1 was challaned. As an aftermath of the aforesaid accident, the claimants preferred this claim petition, which was contested by the respondents. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal, vide order dated 05.2.2008 framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident in question resulting in to the FAO No. 2138 of 2009 -2- death of Pinki wife of Jitender was caused because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR- 66T-1036 by its driver-respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of alleged accident. If so, its effect?OPR-3 4. Relief. The claimants in order to substantiate their case examined Dharmender (PW1) and Jitender claimant appeared as (PW2) and examined Vishnu Sharma (PW3), Raj Kumar Singh (PW4), Ahlmad Rajendri (PW5) and Sudhir Rai (PW6). To the contrary, respondent Nos.1 and 2 tendered into evidence some documents whereas respondent No.3 tendered into evidence copy of the insurance policy. Ultimately the claim petition was dismissed. Heard. The accident allegedly took place on 11th of December, 2006. It has also come in evidence that respondent No.1 had brought Pinki to Rama Munjal Memorial Hospital, Sidhrawali and had also informed the police. No FIR was got lodged on the same day but it was lodged on 19.12.2006. The FIR so lodged on 19.12.2006 at the instance of Dharambir (PW1) do not contain the number of offending vehicle and the name of the FAO No. 2138 of 2009 -3- driver. No eye witness to the occurrence was examined. The presence of Dharamender (PW1) is not established at the spot. The name of respondent No.1 appears to have figured in the criminal case on 16th March, 2007. Even otherwise Dharmender being the brother of claimant appears to have been inserted as an eye witness later on to fetch the claim. Jitender (PW2) is not an eye witness to the occurrence. All this goes to show that the claimants have failed to establish that Pinki had died on account of fault on the part of respondent No.1-Narender Singh. No merits, dismissed. July 29, 2009 (A.N.JINDAL) vj JUDGE