FAO No.6082 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6082 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 14.03.2011 Basau son of Dharam Singh resident of village Mirchpur, Tehsil Narnaud, Distt. Hisar ......Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar son of Balbir Singh and others .....Respondents 2. FAO No.6085 of 2010 (O&M) Smt. Babita widow of Jagminder @ Mahender and others ......Appellants Versus Rakesh Kumar son of Balbir Singh and others .....Respondents 3. FAO No.6093 of 2010 (O&M) Satyawan son of Jagdish resident of village Mirchpur, Tehsil Narnaud, Distt. Hisar ......Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar son of Balbir Singh and others .....Respondents 4. FAO No.6090 of 2010 (O&M) Surender Singh son of Balwant, resident of village Kheri Chopta, Tehsil Narnaud, Distt. Hisar. ......Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar son of Balbir Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. S.N. Pillania, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) FAO No.6082 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 1. All the appeals are connected and they are against the orders of dismissal on the ground that they had failed to establish the involvement of the respondent vehicle in the accident. The accident had taken place on 27.06.2008 and immediately after the accident had taken place some time around 11.30, they had been taken to the hospital where they were unconscious and they were not enquired by the police about how the accident had taken place and the particulars of the vehicle which was involved in the accident. The complaint was lodged by one of the injured Basau on 16.08.2008 and he stated that he had known about the identity of the vehicle through yet another passenger of the vehicle Mr. Satyawan. Stayawan himself has given evidence as PW-8 and he stated that he did not know the registration number of the vehicle. There was no clear evidence before the Tribunal as to how the parties had known about the particulars of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident. There was not even an attempt through any of the witnesses to bring the involvement of the particular vehicle in the accident. The driver of the offending vehicle was also examined as RW-1 and he had specifically denied the fact of accident. The Tribunal holding that the involvement of the vehicle was not established dismissed the claim petition. I find no better material to take a different view. 2. I confirm the awards and dismiss the appeals. The appellant(s) may approach the Government for payment from out of the Consolidated Fund constituted for the purpose under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It shall not become necessary for the claimants to establish again that the injury or death had resulted only on account of FAO No.6082 of 2010 (O&M) -3- motor accident. If such claims are made before the State authorities, they shall take the death or injury as resulting only from a motor accident and any delay in filing such an application may be considered in the light of bona fide prosecution of the parties before the Tribunal and before this Court. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 14, 2011 Pankaj*