IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.4470/2008 Date of Decision: 15.5.2009. Smt.Saroj and others ..........Petitioners. Versus Het Lal and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi,Advocate for the appellants. JASWANT SINGH,J. Appellants-claimants who are mother, widow and minor children of deceased Joginder Singh have filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 5.8.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing their claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.60 lacs on account of death of said Joginder Singh in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 16.9.2005. Briefly noticed, the facts are that on 16.9.2005 deceased Joginder Singh, aged 34 years, on his way from Village Nimot to Village Mandawar was driving motor cycle bearing no.HR-26-P/9413 at a moderate speed by observing traffic rules. It is alleged that at about 3.30 pm, when he reached near a bridge within the area of Village Mandawar, a Tata 207 bearing no. HR- 38-L/6592 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 Het Lal in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle being driven by Joginder Singh as a result of which he fell down on the road FAO No.4470/2008 2 and sustained multiple grievous injuries and as a result he died at the spot. It was alleged that he was a Registered Medical Practitioner running a Clinic under the name and style of Sharma Clinic at Village Nimot and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. With these averments appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which as already noticed above was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the death of deceased Joginder Singh occurred in an accident which was a hit and run case and the offending vehicle was not involved therein. It is contended that the said finding is based on conjectures and surmises and the evidence adduced by the appellants has been ignored. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paper book carefully. In order to prove the factum of accident in the manner alleged in the claim petition, the claimants examined one Virender Singh, alleged eye witness to the accident as PW-2. In his affidavit it was deposed by said Virender Singh that on 16.9.2005 at about 3.15 he was going from Village Pali to Village Abheypur and when he reached at a bridge within the area of Village Mandawar, the offending vehicle driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came and hit the motorcycle of the deceased from behind as a result of which he fell down and died at the spot. It was further stated by him that many persons gathered there and informed the police but he left the spot. FAO No.4470/2008 3 The statement of this witness was allegedly recorded by the police 20 days after the accident. In his cross examination he could not explain as to how police came to know that he was an eye witness to the accident. Further, the FIR in this case was recorded 18 hours after the accident i.e. on 17.9.2005 at 9.30 am by Sanjay, younger brother of deceased. In the FIR it was stated by him that on 16.9.2005 at about 3.30 pm after receipt of information about the accidental death of his brother by an unknown vehicle, he reached the spot and found the dead body of Joginder Singh lying there, which he removed to General Hospital,Sohna for post mortem examination. It was further stated by him that despite making enquiries from different quarters he could not come to know about the particulars of the offending vehicle. In order to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle the claimants examined Rajesh Kumar, who was working as Ahlmad in the Court of Smt. Ranjana Aggarwal,learned JMIC Gurgaon. On the basis of the case file, it was stated by Rajesh Kumar that Het Lal-respondent no.1 was facing trial in a case under Sections 279,304-A IPC which was now fixed for arguments on the point of charge. The learned Tribunal, after perusing the said file found that the involvement of the offending vehicle is based on production of Het Lal- respondent no.1 (driver of the offending vehicle) before police by one Dhani Ram of Village Sapla, who is son of brother in law of said Het Lal. As per case of the prosecution on 17.9.2005 at about 8 pm said Dhani Ram was present at his house when Het Lal-respondent no.1 came to him and confessed FAO No.4470/2008 4 to have caused the accident in question. On the asking of Dhani Ram, Het Lal produced the offending vehicle on 18.9.2005 and thereafter Het Lal-respondent no.1 alongwith vehicle were produced before the police. The learned Tribunal, after minutely examining the aforesaid evidence found that Virender Singh,alleged eye witness, was a procured witness as it was unnatural on his part to have left the spot after seeing the entire occurrence happening before his own eyes. As already noticed above, when cross examined Virender Singh,could not explain as to how police came to know that he was an eye witness. The learned Tribunal after perusing the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., has also noticed that realising that the confession of Het Lal before Dhani Ram was a weak type of evidence, Virender Singh was introduced as an eye witness by adding his name at last Sr.No.11 in a different ink. The criminal proceedings going on against respondent no.1 also cannot be relied upon to connect the offending vehicle for the reason that Dhani Ram, before whom respondent no.1 confessed to have caused accident and who was instrumental in producing him alongwith offending vehicle before police, was, for the reasons best known to claimants, not examined in the claim petition. This Court, also cannot lose sight of the version of the accident given in the FIR by Sanjay, younger brother of deceased Joginder Singh. He had stated that he received the information about accidental death of his brother caused by an unknown vehicle and after reaching the site of accident he made enquiries from various quarters but could not ascertain the particulars of the offending vehicle. FAO No.4470/2008 5 In my opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal regarding the non-involvement of the offending vehicle in this case is evident from the gaping holes in claimants' evidence and no fault can be found with the same. Once in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle is not proved, in my opinion, no fault can be found with the award if the learned Tribunal did not assess the compensation to which the claimants were entitled to. No other point has been raised before this Court. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 15.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge