IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.Nos.27089-90-CII of 2008 and FAO. NO.5409 of 2008(O&M) DATE OF ORDER: 20.3.2009 Chhota Devi and another ....Petitioner(s) Versus Sunil Kumar and others ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) C.M.No.27089-CII of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 01 day in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. C.M.No.27090-CII of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 08 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. C.M.No.27091-CII of 2008 FAO No.5409 of 2008 By filing this appeal, claimants-appellants(Parents) have challenged the award dated 10.5.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari whereby the claim petition filed by them seeking compensation on account of death of their unmarried son Satbir Singh in a motor vehicular accident has been dismissed. Briefly the version of the claimants is that the deceased Satbir C.M.No.27091-CII of 2008 #2# FAO No.5409 of 2008 was working as a servant at the shop of Sita Ram at Rewari. He was a daily passenger from his house in village Lisana to Rewari. On 22.9.2006, at about 8.00 p.m, one Sunil Kumar came to a place near NLN canal Jhajjar road T-point in the area of village Lisana to attend the call of nature. In the meanwhile, a Jeep loaded with passengers, which was coming from the side of Rewari at a very high speed, experienced a jump on account of which, a passenger fell down from the jeep on the road and was crushed under the rear wheel of the Jeep. Driver of the jeep did not stop his vehicle at the spot and escaped with it. Said Sunil Kumar rushed to that passenger and found him to be his brother Satbir, who had already died on account of fatal injuries sustained in the accident. As a result, on the statement of Sunil Kumar, brother of the deceased, an FIR No.98 dated 23.9.2006 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Rewari. The aged parents-claimants of the deceased Satbir Singh filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Respondent No.1-Sunil Kumar S/o Ram Kumar and Ranbir Singh S/o Kewal Singh, driver and registered owner respectively of Jeep No.46A-4892 (hereinafter to be referred as “the offending vehicle”) filed their joint written statement. The accident was denied to have taken place on the alleged/time and place and it was further averred that the FIR lodged with the Police Station was false. Involvement of the offending vehicle in any accident was denied. New India Assurance Company, in its separate written statement, took available defences. It was also averred that the FIR was false and the involvement of the offending vehicle was denied. Claim petition was dismissed on account of the finding C.M.No.27091-CII of 2008 #3# FAO No.5409 of 2008 recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 thereby holding that the claimants had failed to prove the accident in question to be an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the impugned award, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in deciding issue No.1 i.e “death of Satbir Singh did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver” against the claimants while misreading the evidence on record. He submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the eye-witness of the accident i.e brother of the deceased Sunil Kumar, the author of the FIR, while appearing as PW3 has stated in his cross- examination that he had noticed the number of the offending vehicle, at the time of the accident and had also told the same to the police while lodging the FIR but the same was wrongly not written in the contents of the FIR. He further relied on the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle namely Sunil Kumar S/o Ram Kumar is facing criminal trial in FIR No.98 dated 23.9.2006 under Sections 279/304-A IPC, which, prima facie, establishes that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-driver. Learned counsel has also referred to the application dated 13.8.2008, which has been annexed with this appeal, for leading additional evidence whereby the statement of one Udey Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C as also praying for examination as witness. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. C.M.No.27091-CII of 2008 #4# FAO No.5409 of 2008 It is not in dispute that the only direct evidence brought on record on issue No.1, was in the shape of statement of Sunil Kumar-PW3, brother of the deceased, the alleged eye-witness. The Court has found that in the FIR dated 23.9.2006 lodged by him, neither the number nor the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle has been stated. Further, in his cross examination, he has asserted that he had told the number of the offending vehicle to the police while lodging the FIR but the learned Tribunal has found that the police had absolutely no reason for not to have mentioned the name in the FIR. It is also not in dispute with regard to non- mentioning of the number of the offending vehicle in the FIR by the police and no complaint was made to any higher authority. The plea of the claimants that Sunil Kumar-driver was facing criminal charge in the pending FIR to show involvement of the Jeep in the accident was not found sufficient to substantiate the version of the claimants as even the copy of the challan or any other witness from the police was examined in support of the same. Learned Tribunal has further found that assuming if PW3-Sunil Kumar was present at the place of occurrence, he, admittedly, was at a distance and at that time (8.00 PM) when it was getting dark, he could not have seen the accident or noticed the number of the jeep involved in the accident as he himself, in his version, stated “after going to the spot, he looked at the passenger and found him to be his brother Satbir Singh, who was found to have died”. Learned Tribunal taking accumulatively effect of the circumstances, in my opinion has rightly held that no sufficient evidence was brought on record to prove issue No.1. Though the learned Tribunal fixed dependency of the C.M.No.27091-CII of 2008 #5# FAO No.5409 of 2008 petitioners i.e parents of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month while assessing a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- as compensation, however, it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled to recover this amount from the respondents because they failed to prove the accident to be an outcome of rash and negligent driving of Jeep No.HR-4892 by the driver-Sunil Kumar. Mere ongoing trial against the driver-Sunil Kumar in the criminal Court is not sufficient to reverse the finding of the learned Tribunal. No evidence proving the accident having taken place has been produced by the appellants-claimants, which could connect the offending vehicle with the accident. No case is made out for grant of prayer for leading additional evidence by way of examination of one Udey Singh as witness in the present case, at this stage. Dismissed. March 20, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE