FAO No.4229 of 2001(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.4229 of 2001 (O&M) Decided on : September 10, 2009 Smt.Parvesh Devi and others ... Appellants VERSUS Pardeep Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.R.M.Suri, Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal is directed against the award dated 10.4.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamunanagar (herein referred as the Tribunal) dismissing the claim petition. A brief resume of facts is that on 14.10.1998 at about 4.30 PM, Devinder Singh while driving his tractor bearing Reg.No.HR-02B-1812 was coming back to village Lopon via Musimble from village Khundewala. When he reached near Musimble, respondent No.1 while driving the tractor bearing Reg.No.HR-04-7354 rashly and negligently at a high speed came from the opposite side and struck against the tractor, driven by Devinder Singh, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries. Ultimately, he FAO No.4229 of 2001(O&M) [ 2 ] succumbed to those injuries on the same day at 8.25 PM in Sachdeva Nursing and Maternity Hospital, Jagadhri. As an aftermath of the accident, the legal representatives of Devinder Singh filed the claim petition, which was contested by respondents No.1 and 2, who while admitting the accident submitted that it took place because of the negligence of the driver of tractor bearing Reg.No.HR-02B-1812. It was further stated that their tractor was insured with respondent No.3 - National Insurance Company. The stand of respondent No.3 - National Insurance Company, Naraingarh is that the offending tractor was not insured with it and one tractor bearing Engine No.NXC235084 Chasis No.BSM232549 make Farmtrac 55 Model 1998 was insured with it in the name of Jagdish Singh son of Phool Singh resident of village Gadhwali, vide policy dated 23.1.1998. It was also averred that respondents No.1,2 and 4 in collusion with each other, have lodged the claim petition to fetch money from the Insurance Company. All other allegations were also denied by the Company. Respondent No.5 – National Insurance Company Private Limited through Branch Manager, Yamuna Nagar filed a separate reply, wherein, it was submitted that the tractor No.HR-02B-1812 was not insured with it at the time of the alleged accident, but one tractor bearing Reg.No.HR-02B-1218 was insured with it in the name of Phool Singh son of Rattan Singh resident of village Lopon, vide policy No.9702861/98, which was valid for the period from 4.5.1998 to 3.5.1999. It also denied all other allegations. FAO No.4229 of 2001(O&M) [ 3 ] On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the accident resulting into the death of Devinder Singh was caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No.HR-04-7354 by its driver – respondent No.1?OPP 2. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased. If so, whether they are entitled to compensation, then how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Relief.” Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately, the claim petition was dismissed, while holding that the claimants have failed to establish if the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of Pardeep Singh – respondent No.1. The prime witness to prove the accident is Aflatoon (PW1), who is resident of a different village, namely Musimble. He appears to be not present at the time of occurrence. Had he been present there, he must have either got the First Information Report recorded himself or would have informed the claimants regarding the mis-happening, and the claimants in turn would have got registered the FIR. Usha Rani (PW2) stated that they had met Aflatoon after one month and had enquired about the accident and, thereafter, they moved the application before the Police,, which application has also not been proved on the record. No FIR was lodged in this case. The injured was not taken to any Government Hospital. Aflatoon (PW1) FAO No.4229 of 2001(O&M) [ 4 ] had taken the injured to a private hospital, obviously, for the reason that he knew that Pardeep Singh – respondent No.1 was not at fault. There is no post-mortem report. The statement of Aflatoon as well as the recital of the treatment-slip (Ex.P4) clearly reveal that the accident did not take place on account of the fault on the part of respondent No.1. The respondents (owner and driver of the offending vehicle), though have admitted the accident, yet have not accepted their fault, obviously for the reason that if the accident is ultimately proved, then the vehicle being insured, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation. As such, the admission made by them cannot be binding upon the Insurance Company – respondents No.3 and 5, but the same were made just to grab money from the latter. In the aforesaid peculiar circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no accident had taken place for the fault on the part of respondent No.1, and the claimants were entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of `no fault liability'. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. September 10, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE