FAO No.1664 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1664 of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: February 24, 2011 GIAN KAUR ETC. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS GURDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. R.K.S. BRAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. R.K. BASHAMBOO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) The appeal is against dismissal of the petition for claim of compensation for death, alleged to have resulted by a scooter dashing against a tree and killing the deceased. The scooterist had been arrayed as respondent No.1, but he remained ex-parte. The deceased was a retired police official. The facts brought out through the evidence were that the FIR had been lodged immediately after the accident which merely recorded the fact that there was an unidentified body on the road between villages Surewal and Dher. The FIR had also made a reference to the fact that he must have been hit by some unknown vehicle on the road. Later evidence had been led through one Charan Singh who stated that the accident resulted FAO No.1664 of 1998 -2- by the negligent driving of Gurdev Singh who dashed against a tree and the deceased who was a pillion rider suffered fatal injuries. The Tribunal discarded the evidence as artificial for, if he had seen the accident, he ought to have informed the police and a case of an unidentified body as having been recovered would not have been recorded in the FIR. He also admitted in the evidence that he did not himself narrate anything to the police soon after the accident and he did not also attend the cremation and bhog ceremony of the deceased. He had also admitted that he had not gone to pay condolence at the house of the deceased. The reference in the FIR to the existence of unknown body on the road with suspicion of unknown vehicle hitting against the deceased is inconsistent with a version of a local person such as respondent No.1 taking the scooter dashing a tree, but leaving no trace of even damaged scooter in any place nearby. The Tribunal was correct in its conclusion that it was not a genuine case of involvement of the first respondent's vehicle and proceeded to dismiss it. I affirm the finding of the Tribunal. The representatives of the deceased shall have basis for entitlement to claim compensation as a hit-and-run case in the manner provided under by Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If such a claim is made before the Government under the fund set up for this purpose, it shall not become necessary for any adjudication whether a death had resulted only from a motor accident. Even the delay in making such a petition need not be taken up and the time taken by the claimants for adjudication before the Tribunal and before this Court may be taken to the advantage of the claimants by the exclusion of time. FAO No.1664 of 1998 -3- The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but subject to observations made above. February 24, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE