FAO No.2255 of 2008(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.2255 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : October 06, 2009 Sheela Devi and another ... Appellants VERSUS Jai Bhagwan alias Monu alias Sonu (deceased) through LR Ram Dia and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vicky Bishnoi, Advocate for Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr.R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The claimants – appellants (herein referred as the claimants) have challenged the award dated 23.10.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (herein referred as `the Tribunal'). vide which, their claim petition for compensation on account of the death of their son Manjit (herein referred as the deceased) in a motor vehicle accident, was dismissed. Brief resume of facts is that on 20.7.2003, the deceased along with one Sandeep alias Bhonu was on his way from village Buwana to Brar Khera in an auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.HR-56-2008 being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, as a result of which it turned turtle near the garden situated near village Brar Khera. The deceased having FAO No.2255 of 2008(O&M) [ 2 ] suffered grievous injuries was to be shifted to General Hospital, Jind, but he died in the way. As an aftermath of the accident, the claimants filed the claim petition, which was contested by the respondents. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the accident in question has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Auto Rickshaw No.HR-56-2008 being driven by Jai Bhagwan – respondent No.1, resulting into the death of Manjit as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Relief.” Both the parties led their respective oral as well as documentary evidence. Ultimately, the claim petition was dismissed. Arguments heard. Records perused. To prove the rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No.1, claimants examined themselves as PW1 and PW2, respectively, wherein, both these witnesses admitted that they were not present at the spot. PW2 Wazir Singh disclosed that he had got registered the First Information Report, but during cross-examination he stated that he had not named respondent No.1 as driver of the offending vehicle to the police and he also did not file the claim petition. He went to the extent that even the FAO No.2255 of 2008(O&M) [ 3 ] contents of the claim petition were not read over to him and the claim petition filed by his wife was not signed by him. No reliance could be placed on the testimony of Wazir Singh (PW2). In his statement before the police (Mark-A on record), he had disclosed that on 20.7.2003 at 11.00 AM, auto rickshaw bearing No.HR-56- 2008, which was being driven by driver belonging to village Kinana was going from their village towards Buwana side, at that time, his son Manjit had climbed on the backside of the aforesaid auto rickshaw and after some distance his son Manjit had fallen down and was dragged upto a short distance. Resultantly, he had sustained multiple injuries on his body and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. He categorically stated that his son Manjit had died on account of his own fault, but now while appearing in the Court, he has given altogether different version, which could be said to have been made out of greed and encash the death of Manjit. It is also pertinent to note that in the initial statement as has been discussed above, Wazir Singh (PW2) had given the description of the driver of the auto rickshaw to be a person belonging to village Kinana, but respondent No.1 Jai Bhagwan is admittedly from village Brar Khera, therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that respondent No.1 was not the driver of the offending vehicle, appears to be plausible. The news item, which appeared in the news paper, on the next day of the accident, also wrote that one Manjit resident of village Brar Khera had died when he was travelling by climbing on the back of the tempo going from village Brar Khera to Buwana. From the evidence, it cannot be said to have been established in FAO No.2255 of 2008(O&M) [ 4 ] any manner that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1 or that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. In view of the above, while affirming the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the instant appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. October 06, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE