FAO No. 3875 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3875 of 2003 Date of decision: 21.10.2011 Kaushalya Devi and Another Appellants vs. Punjab State through Secretary and Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General,Punjab for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the Award dated 5.6.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (for short the Tribunal). The brief facts of the case are that appellant-claimants, Kaushalya Devi and Shah Dev Mukhia filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) against the respondents claiming compensation on account of death of their son Ganesh Mukhia in a motor vehicular accident. As per the case of the claimants, on 22.11.1999, Ganesh Mukhia was traveling in a Punjab Roadways, Pathankot Depot bus bearing registration No. PB-12-C-9741 (offending Bus). When the bus which was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner reached in the area of Guru Nanak Public School, Golanpur, it struck against a mini bus bearing registration No. PB-06-B-21168. Rachpal Singh, FAO No. 3875 of 2003 2 driver of mini bus received injuries and died at the spot. As a result of the accident, Ganesh Mukhia who was traveling in the Bus, also died at the spot. The accident was witnessed by Gian Singh, father of driver of Mini Bus. FIR was registered against the driver of the offending bus. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Ganesh Mukhia was a 24 years old labourer and was earning Rs. 2550/- per month. Upon notice, respondents No. 1 & 2 filed written statement and took the stand that the driver of mini bus struck against the offending bus, when it was stationery for alighting the passengers. The driver of the mini bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and in the accident, driver of offending vehicle got his leg fractured. Respondent No.3, driver of offending bus took a similar stand. Respondent No.6, Insurance Company took the stand that drivers of both the buses were not holding valid driving licences. Respondents No. 4 & 5 have violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The driver of the mini bus was not having any registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate. It was alleged that the driver of offending bus was rash and negligent while driving the bus, therefore, respondents No. 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation. Replication was filed by the claimants denying the averments made in the written statements and reiterating their stand taken in the claim petition. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1.Whether on 22.11.1999, respondent Parveen Kumar was driving the bus bearing registration No. PB-12-C-9741 rashly FAO No. 3875 of 2003 3 and negligently in the area of Guru Nanak Public School, Gopalpura, Amritsar and caused the death of Ganesh Mukhia as alleged, if so, its effect? OPA 2. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased Ganesh Mukhia, as alleged? OPA 3. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPA 4. Whether the driver of the mini bus was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR-6 5. Whether the accident took place on account of fault of driver of mini bus No. PB-2168. OPR-1 to 3 6. Relief” After appreciation of entire evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Ld. Tribunal observed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3, causing death of some unknown person. As per statement of AW3-Gian Singh, father of deceased driver of mini bus, when the mini bus reached in the area of Guru Nanak Public School, Gopalpura, offending bus driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner struck against the mini bus as a result of which his son Rachpal Singh died at the spot and some un- identified Bhayia (labourer) who was also traveling in the mini bus also died. The post mortem report Ex.A-2 pertained to some unknown person. While dealing with Issue No.2 that whether the claimants are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased Ganesh Mukhia, the Ld. Tribunal FAO No. 3875 of 2003 4 observed that the post mortem report Ex. A-2 relates to some unknown person. The post mortem examination was conducted and remains of deceased were kept in Police Station. There is no evidence on record that applicants identified the remains of the deceased and those remains were of Ganesh Mukhia. The applicants have failed to prove that they were related to Ganesh Mukhia. Shah Dev Mukhia, AW2 has stated that Ganesh Mukhia was his son, but he has not produced any documentary evidence i.e the ration card, voter card or any other proof to establish his claim. Karnail Singh Bathewala has appeared and stated that Ganesh Mukhia was his permanent labourer in the farm house but he has not stated that he was the son of the claimants. The Ld. Tribunal further observed that claimants have failed to prove that the dead body of unknown person was that of Ganesh Mukhia and that Ganesh Mukhia was the son of the claimants. The Ld. Tribunal held that claimants were not the legal heirs of the deceased unknown person and not entitled to any claim. The claim petition was dismissed vide Award dated 5.6.2003. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that the Ld. Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record. A perusal of the file shows that applicants have failed to produce any evidence on record to show that deceased was Ganesh Mukhia and was their son. No document was produced on record which shows that unknown deceased person was Ganesh Mukhia. As per the case of the claimants, at the time of accident, Ganesh Mukhia was traveling in the offending bus, whereas as per statement of Gian Singh, father of deceased driver of mini bus, at the time of alleged accident, Rachpal Singh died at the FAO No. 3875 of 2003 5 spot and some unknown Bhaiya traveling in the mini bus also died in the accident. The post mortem report Ex.A2 also relates to some unknown person. There is no evidence on record to show that the remains of unknown deceased were of Ganesh Mukhia. In view of the above, this Court feels that the Ld. Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the applicants. This appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 21.10.2011 MS