In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No.2967 of 2009 Date of decision: September 16, 2009 Kamlesh and another .. Appellants Vs. Rajpal and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J The appellants-claimants (herein referred as 'the claimants') have preferred this appeal against the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, dismissing their claim petition. Brief resume of facts is that on 17.12.2006 Mahabir Singh along with Goverdhan was going on motor cycle bearing registration No.HR06M-9369 from Naultha to Israna and at about 6.30 p.m. when they reached in front of Guru Nanak Filling Station, Gohana Road, Israna, the respondent No.1 while driving Tata Sumo bearing registration No.HR31-A- 5702 rashly and negligently came from the back side and struck against the aforesaid motor cycle, as a result of which Mahabir and Goverdhan fell down and received multiple injuries. Mahabir succumbed to the injuries. The matter was also reported to the police. Claim petition was also preferred. The petition was contested by the respondents. The respondents No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement besides taking some objections, further pleaded that no such accident took place and a false FIR was recorded by the police against the respondent No.1 in collusion with the complainant. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed its separate written statement taking up almost the identical pleas. It has been further submitted that it is a hit and run case. It has been further averred that the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. F.A.O. No.2967 of 2009 -2- *** From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- i) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo bearing registration No.HR31-A-5702 by the respondent No.1?OPP ii) If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to receive and from whom?OPP iii) Whether the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation in view of preliminary objections taken by it in its written statement?OPR 3. iv) Relief In order to substantiate the issues, the appellants examined Kamlesh (PW1), Gulab Nabi (PW2) and also tendered into evidence copy of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C (Ex.PA), copy of the rough site plan (Ex.PB), salary slip of Mahabir deceased (Ex.PC) and copy of the PMR of Mahabir Singh (Ex.PD). To the contrary, the respondents examined Rajpal (RW1), Subhash Chand (RW2) and also tendered into evidence copy of the statement of Dharam Pal (Ex.R1), copy of FIR (Ex.R2), copy of the driving licence of Raj Pal Singh (Ex.R3), copies of the insurance policy of offending Tata Sumo (Ex.R4 & R5). Ultimately the claim petition was dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Having examined the record, it may be observed that on 17.2.2006, a telephonic message was received in the Police Post that an accident had taken place near NC college Panipat. Upon receipt of the message ASI Balwan Singh along with other police officials reached in front of Guru Nanak Filling Station Balana. The injured Mahabir and Goverdhan were shifted to the hospital of Dr. D.N. Batra. Mahabir was declared dead and Goverdhan was shifted to Prem Hospital, Panipat. Dharampal in his statement before ASI Balwan Singh further disclosed that on 17.12.2006, he was going to doctor at Israna. Goverdhan his cousin F.A.O. No.2967 of 2009 -3- *** along with Mahabir were going ahead of him on motor cycle bearing registration No.HR06M9369. When they reached near Guru Nanak Filling Station, Balana, one jeep came from the back side very rashly and negligently and hit the motor cycle of Mahabir Singh. Both of them fell down and sustained injuries. The driver of the jeep fled away. Due to high speed he was unable to notice the number of the jeep. It may further be observed that on the next day i.e. 18.12.2006, Gulab Nabi got his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. claiming himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence and disclosed that on the day of occurrence, he being washer-man or the students of Engineering College, was coming back after handing over the clothes in the college. When he reached in front of Guru Nanak Filling Station, he saw injured and deceased on a motor cycle. In the meantime, one Tata Sumo came and hit their motor cycle. As a result of the accident both the motor cyclist fell down on the road and received injuries. He further deposed that he noted down the number of the offending vehicle as HR31-A-5702. From the record, it transpires that Dharam Pal complainant as well as Goverdhan injured have not been examined for the reasons best known to them. Gulab Nabi an eye witness so examined as PW-2 was not present at the spot and his statement was recorded on the next day of the accident i.e. 18.12.2006. In his cross examination, Gulab Nabi (PW2) has stated that he had read the news regarding the accident in the Panipat Bhaskar on 18.12.2006 and on that day the police met him at his shop where he had disclosed that he had noted down the number of the offending Tata Sumo from a distance of 20-25 paces. In this regard it may be observed that the accident took place on 17.12.2006 and in the winter season at about 7.00 p.m. when it is quite dark. It was not probable for him to note down the number of Tata Sumo that too from 20-25 paces. It has also not been explained as to why he did not note down the number of the motor cycle. As such, the presence of this witness at the spot is highly doubtful. He appears to be an introduced witness. The non-examination of material witnesses is fatal and goes a long way to prove that the case has been falsely registered in order to raise false claim. F.A.O. No.2967 of 2009 -4- *** The Tribunal appears to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. September 16, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge