-1- F.A.O. No. 351 of 1996 . IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 351 of 1996 . Date of Decision: 29.4.2010. Smt. Murti Devi and others v. Rajesh and others. Present: Mr.Ranjana Salaria, Advocate, amicus curiae, for the appellants. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the respondent-Insurance Company. -.- Mohinder Pal, J. This appeal has been filed against the Award dated 07-06-1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') whereby claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the grant of compensation on account of death of Layak Ram alias Lekh Raj in an accident was dismissed. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 27.3.1994, Layak Raj alias Lekh Raj along with Balbir Singh was coming to their house at Chawla Colony from Sharda Colony on foot. When they reached near Sabjimandi Chowk, a Maruti Van bearing registration No.DL-1-CB-0164 being driven by Rajesh (respondent No.1) in a rash and negligent manner came from -2- F.A.O. No. 351 of 1996 . Palwal side and struck against Layak Ram. As a result of the impact, Layak Ram suffered injuries on his neck, head and face. After the accident, the Maruti van was stopped for a while and thereafter the Driver fled it away towards Delhi. Layak Ram was removed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, ( `A.I.I.M.S) where he succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of statement of Balbir Singh, an F.I.R (Exhibit P.1) was registered in this case. Separate written statements were filed by the respondents i.e Rajesh (respondent No.1), driver of offending Maruti Van, owner of the offending Maruti van (respondent No.2) and the Oriental Insurance Company (respondent No.3). Respondent No.1,in his written statement, denied the allegations contained in the petition. Respondent No.2 pleaded that no accident as alleged by the claimants took place on 27.3.1994 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The insurance Company (respondent No.3), in its written statement denied the factum of accident. It was also pleaded by the Insurance Company that the present claim petition had been filed by the claimants in collusion with respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in order to claim compensation. Other allegations contained in the claim petition were denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “ 1. Whether Layak Ram alias Lekh Raj died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on -3- F.A.O. No. 351 of 1996 . 27.3.1994 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-1-CB-0164 driven by respondent No.1? 2. To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? 3. Relief”. Under issue No.1, the learned Tribunal held that the appellants-claimants failed to prove that the accident in which Layak Ram alias Lekh Raj died, was caused by rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Van by respondent Rajesh. Accordingly, issue No.1 was decided in favour of the respondents and against the appellants-claimants. Resultantly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants. I have heard Mr.Ranjana Salaria , Advocate, amicus curiae, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, appearing for the Insurance Company and have gone through the records of the case. The case of the claimants-appellants is based solely on the statement of Balbir Singh (P.W.1), who deposed that, on the relevant day, he along with Layak Ram (deceased) was coming from Sharda Colony to Chawla Colony on foot. When they reached near the Chowk of Sabji Mandi, a Maruti Van bearing registration No. 164 came from the side of Palwal, being driven by Rajesh (respondent No.1) in a rash and negligent manner and it struck against Layak Ram. As a result of the accident, Layak Ram -4- F.A.O. No. 351 of 1996 . received injuries. He was removed to A.I.I.M.S in another Maruti Van. Layak Ram succumbed to the injuries later on. As noticed above, respondent No.2, the owner of Maruti Van bearing registration No.DL-1CB-0164, which was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company (respondent No.3), in the written statement filed before the Tribunal denied the accident having taken place on 27.3.1994 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving the offending Maruti Van. The stand of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal was that the claim petition had been filed by the claimants-appellants in collusion with respondents Nos. 1 and 2. However, the crux of the matter in this case is that Balbir Singh (P.W.1), who is the author of the F.I.R (Exhibit P.1) in this case, had failed to give the name of the respondent-Driver or vehicle number in the F.I.R. He had simply stated that the registration number of the offending vehicle was 164. Balbir Singh had also allegedly made an application (Mark `A') to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridabad, but the said application does not bear the signatures of Balbir Singh. Besides, no evidence was led on record to prove that the application Mark `A' had, in fact, been moved by Balbir Singh. Bhikh Chand R.W.2) has proved on record that the case registered on the basis of F.I.R (Exhibit P.1) was closed as untraced vide report dated 26.7.1994. Thus, it could not be proved on record that the accident in question had been caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Van by Rajesh (respondent No.1.). -5- F.A.O. No. 351 of 1996 . In view of the above, I do not find any ground warranting interference in the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal. This appeal is, accordingly, hereby dismissed. April 29, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE -6- F.A.O. No. 351 of 1996 .