In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.1373 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:5.5.2008 Biker Singh .....Appellant v. Hardeep Kaur and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the appellant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 23.1.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barnala (`Tribunal' – for short). The respondents filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (`Act' – for short) on account of the death of Manpreet Singh, who died in a motor vehicle accident near I.T.I. Chowk, Barnala on 20.2.2006. Manpreet Singh (deceased) was going on his motorcycle from his house situated in Gursewak Nagar, Dhanaula Road, Barnala towards I.T.I. Chowk to get fuel filled from the petrol pump near I.T.I. Chowk, Barnala. While Manpreet Singh was going he was followed by his brother Amandeep Singh, who was driving another motorcycle. The offending truck bearing registration No. PBP-6551, it is alleged, was being driven rashly and negligently by the appellant Biker Singh. The truck came from Dhanaula side from the rear side of the motorcycles. After crossing the F.A.O. No.1373 of 2008 [2] motorcycle being driven by Amandeep Singh, the truck dashed against the motorcycle driven by Manpreet Singh from the rear side. Manpreet Singh (deceased) along with motorcycle fell down on the road and the truck ran over him. Manpreet Singh was crushed to death at the spot. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is a driver of the truck and he has no means to pay. In any case, it is submitted that a compromise dated 13.3.2006 (Annexure-A.1) was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said compromise, it is contended that there was no fault of the appellant-driver and it is clearly recorded by Hardeep Kaur (respondent No.1) that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the truck and he had not intentionally caused accident. The accident was due to hitting the side of the Tempo and now a compromise has been effected between Hardeep Kaur and the driver (appellant) as also Santokh Singh, the owner of the offending vehicle. The said compromise, it is submitted, has been signed by Hardeep Kaur and her husband Malkiat Singh and witnessed by two witnesses Sukhwinder Singh and Khushwinder Singh. In view of the said compromise, it is submitted that it is clear that the appellant, who was the driver of the truck, is in no way at fault. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel. However, it may be noticed that this aspect has been duly considered by the learned Tribunal in para 16 of its award. It has been observed that no plea with regard to compromise (Ex.R.1) had been raised by the appellant and the same cannot be looked into to settle the controversy. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the signatures of respondent No.1 Hardeep Kaur were duly proved by Hand- F.A.O. No.1373 of 2008 [3] writing Expert are devoid of any merit. It is well settled that no amount of evidence can be looked into in the absence of pleadings. Therefore, the learned Tribunal below has rightly not taken into consideration the compromise (Ex.R.1). It may also be noticed that in the compromise a mention has been made to the motorcycle hitting the side of the tempo. However, no mention of the tempo No. is given. Moreover, Biker Singh while appearing as RW-4 in his cross-examination clearly stated that he did not know the registration number of the tempo which struck with the deceased. He also stated that he did not know the name of the owner of the tempo. Therefore, evidently the compromise cannot be taken into consideration even if it is held to be duly exhibited on record. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. It is stated that the owner of the truck, namely, Santokh Singh was proceeded against ex parte before the Tribunal and he has filed an application for setting aside the award. It is made clear that the observations made herein shall not affect the proceedings for setting aside the ex parte award. May 5, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes