IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH F. A. O. No.4666 of 2005 Date of Decision: December 11, 2008 Smt. Santosh and others ...........Appellants Versus Sukhdev Singh and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal,Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Raj Kumar Bhisamboo, Advocate for the New India Assurance Company Ltd. * * * Sabina, J. This is an appeal against the award dated 5.8.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was dismissed. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 20.2.2003 Jagmal Singh, (since deceased) was going from Mohali to village Jhanjeri,Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar on Scooter No. CHA/9937 on the correct side of the road. At about 9.30 P.M. when he reached near the village Landran, respondent No.1 came from behind in a Maruti Car bearing No. DL-2CB/0231, driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, and struck against his scooter. As a result of this, Jagmal Singh suffered multiple injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to PGI Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries on 2.3.2003. Hence, the claim petition F. A. O. No.4666 of 2005 -2- was filed. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the respondents and they filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1. Whether Jagmal Singh had died in an accident dated 20.2.2003 at about 9.30 P.M. in the area of village Landran, caused by respondent No.1 Sukhdev Singh while driving Maruti Car No. DL-2CB/0231 rashly and negligently? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Jagmal Singh?OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Is the petition not maintainable? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPR 6. To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to recover? If so, from whom? OPP 7. Relief” Parties led their evidence in support of their case. Vide the impugned award, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants and aggrieved by the same, claimants have filed the present appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, FIR in this case was lodged by Karamjit Singh, who did not disclose the number of the car or the identity of the car driver in F. A. O. No.4666 of 2005 -3- the FIR, as the car driver had sped away from the spot. The FIR was lodged on 2.3.2003, whereas, the accident had occurred on 20.2.2003. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained by the claimants nor lodger of the FIR has been examined by the claimants. Claimants examined Hardeep Singh (PW2) to prove the accident. The said witness deposed that on 20.2.2003 at 9.15 P.M., he was to go to Mohali from Chandigarh. He took lift in Maruti car No. DL-2CB/0231. The driver of the vehicle was driving the car at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner. He asked the driver to slow down the car but he did not pay any heed to his request. When they reached near Landran chowk, the car struck against the scooter. The driver of the car then did not stop his car. He (witness) got down at Samrala Chowk and told his friend Naib Singh to inform the police regarding the accident. Hardeep Singh (witness) went to Delhi in connection with some personal work. He again came to Chandigarh on 8.3.2003 and made his statement before the police. During cross- examination, this witness admitted that he was not related to the deceased nor he had lodged any FIR regarding the accident. He had not appeared in the criminal case so far and had come to know about the name of the driver on 20.8.2004. The learned Tribunal rightly found the presence of Hardeep Singh (PW2) at the spot doubtful. The said witness was not known to the driver of the car and, as such, it is not believable that he would have got lift in the car at night time. In case, he had actually seen the accident, he would have immediately informed the police regarding the accident and not waited upto 8.3.2003. Hardeep Singh (PW2) asked his friend to inform the police regarding the accident which Naib Singh had not seen. The said F. A. O. No.4666 of 2005 -4- Naib Singh was not examined by the claimants. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the claimants had failed to prove that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The impugned award does not call for interference. Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Sabina ) Judge December 11, 2008 arya