IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO 3157/2008(O&M) Date of Decision: 7.5.2009. Ajit Singh and others ..........Appellants Versus Rajesh Kumar and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Atul Yadav,Advocate for the appellants. JASWANT SINGH,J, CM No.17964-CII/2008. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 40 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.3157/2008. Appellants-claimants are aggrieved against the award dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing their claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lac alongwith interest on account of death of their son Subhash alias Sandeep in a motor vehicular accident that allegedly took place on 30.8.2005. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is based on wrong FAO 3157/2008(O&M) 2 appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the claimants on record. I find no merit in this contention of the learned counsel. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the accident in which deceased Subhash @ Sandeep lost his life took place on 30.8.2005. FIR in this case, involving the respondents 1 and 2 herein,being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, was recorded only on 3.10.2005, i.e., after a lapse of more than one month on the basis of statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C., made by Ajit Singh (claimant-appellant no.1-father of the deceased) and Satish (uncle of the deceased Subhash @ Sandeep). It is not disputed that on 31.8.2005, i.e. just one day after the accident, police recorded statements of said Ajit Singh and Satish u/s 175 Cr.P.C., in which it was their categoric stand that the accident was caused by an unknown TATA 407 vehicle. There is another strong evidence in the form of testimony of Jagdish PW2, which goes to show that the story put forth in the claim petition is a concocted one. While appearing as PW2 said Jagdish, who is none else than a neighbour of deceased Subhash @ Sandeep, stated that on the fateful day at about 5.30 p.m., he was going on his motorcycle bearing registration no.HR- 26-Y-7746 from his village to Panchgaon while the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider. When they reached a little ahead of Country Club, another motor cycle without bearing any registration no., came from opposite side being driven in a rash and negligent manner and struck against their motorcycle as a result of which they fell down and sustained injuries. The deceased was taken FAO 3157/2008(O&M) 3 by him first to a private doctor at Panchgaon and then to Kalawati Hospital, Manesar from where he was referred to Sethi Hospital,Gurgaon and then again referred to Kalyani Hospital,Gurgaon but the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the way. Except his bald statement that he also received injuries in the said accident he has produced no documentary evidence to corroborate the same. Thus his presence at the scene of accident was doubted by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, It was stated by Jagdish (PW2) that he took deceased Sandeep to a doctor at Panchgaon where family members of the deceased arrived and they took him to Gurgaon whereas he returned back to his house. It does not appeal to reason that at the clinic of doctor at Panchgaon Jagdish (PW2) would not have revealed the factum of accident having been caused by the motorcycle being driven by respondent no.1-Rajesh Kumar. Learned Tribunal found that surprisingly claimant Ajit Singh and his brother Satish Kumar did not utter even a single word against respondent no.1. In my opinion, it all goes to show that the averments contained in the claim petition were concocted and thus the learned Tribunal rightly rejected the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants. No other point has been urged in this appeal. Dismissed. No costs. 7.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge