IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos. 20614 and 20615-CII-2010 in/and FAO No. 4798 of 2010 Date of Decision : August 18, 2010. Rajwinder Singh @ Raja and another ....... Appellants Versus Parminder Kaur and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). C.M. No. 20614-CII-2010. Prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of 50 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application supported by an affidavit of the counsel, delay of 50 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands allowed. C.M. No. 20615-CII-2010. Prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands allowed. FAO No. 4798 of 2010 A claim petition was filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot, (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for grant FAO No. 4798 of 2010 -2- of compensation on account of death of Baljinder Singh, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 02.05.2008 at about 09:30 p.m. in the area of village Ratti Rori. Baljinder Singh was stated to be returning to his village on his scooter. When he reached near the area of village Ratti Rori, a tractor bearing No. PCB-5350 driven by appellant No. 1/Rajwinder Singh came from the opposite direction and hit the scooter, resulting in the death of Baljinder Singh. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence allowed the claim petition preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 4 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,90,000/- alongwith interest @ 9 per cent per annum with effect from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. It is against this Order that the present appeal has been preferred. Counsel for the appellants contends that the factum of the accident having taken place on 02.05.2008 at about 09:30 p.m. has been denied by the appellants and no cogent evidence has been led by the claimants in support of this fact that the accident did take place with the tractor driven by appellant No. 1. He contends that an eye witness Jagtar Singh, who had appeared as PW-2 before the Court, has not identified the tractor number when the FIR was registered and the number was subsequently got added. He contends that the FIR which has been registered against appellant No. 1 is therefore not correct. He contends that the finding recorded merely on the basis of oral evidence of Jagtar Singh cannot be sustained. This contention of counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted for the reason that the factum of registration of DDR (Ex.P-5), FIR (Ex.P-3) and the post mortem report (Ex.P- 4) has not been denied by the appellants. It has also come in evidence and especially in the cross-examination of Rajwinder Singh/appellant No. 1, who appeared as RW-1 and stated that a case was registered against him regarding the accident and charge has already been framed against him and the case is FAO No. 4798 of 2010 -3- fixed for evidence. It is also admitted that the tractor was taken in police possession and was only released on superdari. The statement of the eye witness alongwith documentary evidence goes a long way to prove that the accident had taken place and that too with the tractor in question. Counsel for appellants has also placed reliance on the statement of RW-2/Gurcharan Singh, who is tractor mechanic and therefore, is an expert to give evidence on the factum as to whether the accident had taken place or not between the scooter and tractor. What has been stated by the witness Gurcharan Singh is based on his personal knowledge and it cannot be stated that the same has to do anything with the expertise, which he has. He being a tractor mechanic could have only deposed with regard to any mechanical defect in the tractor, which was not the case of the claimant that the tractor was a defective one, which had caused accident nor was this plea of the appellant before the Court. Thus, evidence of RW-2/Gurcharan Singh does not in any way support the case of the appellants nor does it prove the factum of accident having taken place at the spot. Moreover, PW-2/Jagtar Singh, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, had not taken the deceased Baljinder Singh from the spot where he received multiple injuries in the accident. The scooter was found at that very spot where the accident had taken place. All this goes to show that the accident did take place and that too with the tractor in question. The next contention raised by counsel for the appellants is that the deceased Baljinder Singh did not have a valid licence and therefore responsibility on the appellants cannot be foisted. To a categoric question put by this Court as to whether this plea was raised before the Tribunal below, counsel for the appellants very fairly stated that the same was not so. In view of this fact, the plea as is being sought to be raised at this FAO No. 4798 of 2010 -4- belated stage cannot be allowed. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is, thus, in accordance with the evidence produced by the parties both documentary and oral, which do not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 18, 2010. sjks.