F.A.O.No.2302 of 2000 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.2302 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision 24.08.2009 Mohinder Singh and another ......Appellants VERSUS The Secretary, Transport Department, Punjab atChandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Surinder Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Aggrieved against the order dated 24.01.2000, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, dismissing the claim petition preferred by the claimants-appellants (herein referred as 'the appelants') on account of the death of Ajit Singh, the appellants have come up in appeal. On 03.12.1997 Ajit Singh was proceeding from Morinda to his village on bicycle. When he was out to cross the road while reaching near village Marouli Kalan, respondent No.3, while driving the bus bearing registration No.PB-12-B-9411 rashly and negligently came and struck against the bicycle of Ajit Singh. Resultantly, he fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries. Ajit Singh was shifted to Civil Hospital, Morinda, and from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries on 04.12.1997. As an aftermath of the accident, the claim petition was filed. It was contested by the respondents. From pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Ajit Singh died due to an accident which took place on 03.12.1997 at about 4/4:30 p.m. In the area of village Marauli Kalan due to rash and negligent driving of F.A.O.No.2302 of 2000 (O&M) 2 respondent No.3 while driving bus No.PB-12B-9411 ? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation ? If so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP 3. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. On scrutiny, the Tribunal was of the view that since no witness came forward to prove the accident, therefore, the claimants have no case. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that though no eye-witness to the occurrence has been examined yet there is evidence against the respondents in the shape of death certificate Ex.P1, FIR Ex.P2 and post mortem report Ex.P3. Besides, the claimant himself has also appeared in the witness box. As regards the claimant, he is not an eye witness to the occurrence. The author of the FIR has not come forward to prove the same and support the version. Death certificate Ex.P1 and post mortem report Ex.P3 do not in any way establish the rashness and negligence of respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the appellants has further urged that accident in this case is admitted. Notwithstanding the fact that accident is stated to have taken place it has not been admitted that it was result of negligence of the respondent-driver which was sine quo for fastening the liability upon the respondents. Hence this claim petition is dismissed. However, the claimants would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of no fault liability alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the award amount. (A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE 24.08.2009 mamta-II