FAO No.2645 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2645 of 2004 Date of Decision:08.12.2008 Bhagwani Devi & anr. ....appellants Versus Rajesh Kumar & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Sukhdeep Parmal,Advocate for Mr.Navneet Singh,Advocate for the appellants **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is claimants' appeal challenging the impugned Award dated 09.02.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, whereby the claimants have been awarded Rs.50,000/- on the basis of no fault liability and the claim under Section 166 has been rejected, as the Tribunal found that the accident in question was caused by the negligence of deceased himself. I have perused the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1. To prove issue No.1, the claimants/appellants had placed reliance on the statement of PW2 Constable Suresh Kumar who made his statement on the basis of the record and stated that on 02.10.1995, DDR No.16 was registered on the statement of Rajesh s/o Dharampal Brahman, resident of Sadeer, P.S.Butana District Karnal and according to PW4 Rajender Singh, on 01.10.1995 at about 8.00/9.00 p.m. he was going from bus stand, Sonepat towards Sector-14 on Murthal Road when he noticed a truck moving towards the road. At the same time he also saw a motorcycle on which two persons were travelling at a very high speed. The driver of the FAO No.2645 of 2004 2 motorcycle was wearing a helmet while the pillion rider was bare headed. After seeing the truck, the driver of the motorcycle applied sudden brakes and due to that he could not control the motorcycle. It slipped away which resulted in the accident, whereas, according to PW2 Suresh Kumar, respondent No.1 deceased Rajesh started their journey on motorcycle No.HR-02/-0790 on 01.10.1995 at 5.00 p.m.from Madhuban. From there, they went to the house of the sister of the deceased where they took some eatables and started for Sonepat. At that time, the motorcycle was being driven by the deceased himself while respondent No.1 was the pillion rider. It is also mentioned in the DDR that the deceased was driving the motorcycle at a very high speed with rash and negligent manner who after seeing the truck applied sudden brakes and due to that the motorcycle slipped and the accident occurred and as a result of it they sustained injuries. Thus, after recording the DDR, the police did not proceed with the investigation. After taking into account the testimonies of witnesses and the circumstantial evidence, the Tribunal has found that the accident was caused by the deceased himself. The learned counsel for the appellants was unable to find fault with the aforesaid testimonies. No merits. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 08.12.2008 neenu