FAO No. 2451 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … FAO No. 2451 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: August 24, 2009 Smt. Bharpai and others ..Appellants Versus Partap Singh and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate for the Appellants ,,, Rakesh Kumar Garg,J C.M.No.11884-CII of 2009 C.M. is allowed. Delay of 90 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No. 2451 of 2009 This is claimant’s appeal challenging the impugned award whereby claim petition filed by the appellants claiming compensation for causing death of Ramesh Chander due to rash and negligent driving of Tata 407 by respondent No.1 has been dismissed on the ground that appellants have failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle in question in the alleged accident. The brief facts as pleaded by the claimant/appellants are that on 7.11.2006 at about 7.30 P.M. Ramesh Chander (deceased) accompanied by his brother Sat Parkash was going to Silokhra on a bi-cycle and when he reached near CRPF Chowk, the Tata 407 bearing registration No. HR 55-0538 (hereinafter referred to as the” Tata 407”) driven negligently came and struck against his cycle, as a result thereof, he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed on his way while going to Civil Hospital Gurgaon. A criminal case was registered vide FIR No.328 dated 8.11.2006 in Police Station Sector 5, Gurgaon against respondent No.1. The Tata 407 was owned by respondent No.1 and was insured with respondent No.2. The deceased was aged about 55 years and employed in FAO No. 2451 of 2009 2 MTNL and was getting a salary of Rs. 20000/- P.M. The claimants were fully dependent upon him and thus were entitled to the amount of compensation of Rs. 20 lacs from the respondents. Respondent No.1 in his written statement denied the involvement of Tata 407 in the accident and submitted that a false case was registered against him. It was further submitted that the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.2 and he was having a valid and effective driving licence. Respondent No.2 while denying the involvement of Tata 407 in the alleged accident denied its liability to pay any compensation on the ground that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and he violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. With these submissions, dismissal of the claim petition was sought. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the claimants have not been able to prove the involvement of Tata 407 vehicle in question in the alleged accident,therefore, no findings were returned on issue Nos.2 and 3 and as a result of the findings under issue No.1, the claim petition was dismissed. Challenging the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that there was ample evidence on record from which the involvement of Tata 407 in question in the alleged accident stand proved and further that alleged accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. In support of her argument, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the version of PW7 Rajinder who heard conversation of three tempo drivers, one of whom was stating that about 5-6 months earlier, near CRPF Camp, his TATA 407 had hit a cyclist and he had fled away from there and none had taken any action against him nor the number of his vehicle could be noted. On the next day, after inquiring the name of the aforesaid person and number of his TATA 407 vehicle, he gave information to the police. Elaborating her argument further learned counsel stated that the Tribunal had wrongly disbelieved the statement of the above witness. Apart from this, it is also argued FAO No. 2451 of 2009 3 that police had also filed challan against respondent No.1 and he was facing trial for causing the death by vehicular accident and thus it was duly proved in evidence that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata 407 by respondent No.1. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. To prove their case, appellants examined alleged eye witness Sat Parkash PW6 and Rajinder PW7. In his affidavit Exh. PW6/A, Sat Parkash PW6 stated that on 7.11.2006, her was going on cycle to his village and his brother Ramesh Chander since deceased was ahead of him on his cycle. At about 7.30 P.M., when the deceased reached near CRPF Chowk, a Tata 407 vehicle struck against his cycle causing multiple and grievous injuries on his body to which Ramesh Chander succumbed on his way to hospital. He lodged FIR Ex. P7 with the police. However, in his cross examination, he admitted that he had not noted down the registration number of the vehicle. He also admitted that he was not aware of the type of the vehicle involved in the accident. Therefore, he got recorded that an unknown vehicle has hit the deceased. The version of PW6 which has come in his affidavit and the statement made before the police on 8.11.2006 on the basis of which FIR Ex.P7 was recorded are different. Rajinder PW7 who is son of the deceased in his affidavit Ex.PW7/A mentioned that on 21.4.2007 when he had gone to Gurgaon to hire a Tempo, he heard the conversation of three Tempo Drivers, one of whom was stating that 5/6 months earlier near CRPF Chowk, his Tata 407 had hit the cyclist and he fled away from there and no body had taken any action against him nor the number of his vehicle could be noted down. Admittedly, Rajinder did not witness the accident in question. The story introduced by him cannot be believed at all. It is strange that after about 6 months of the accident, he came to know about the driver of the vehicle in the manner stated above. Sat Parkash PW6 had categorically mentioned in the FIR Ex.P7 that his brother Ramesh Chand had gone ahead whereas he remained behind FAO No. 2451 of 2009 4 because of crowd and when he reached CRPF Chowk, he found him lying on the road in injured condition and that some unknown vehicle had hit him. In the light of the above discussion, I find no fault in the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the appellant have failed to prove the fact that the alleged accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of Tata 407 owend by respondent No.1. No other point was urged. No merit. Dismissed. August 24, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE