IN THE HI 224 Ruksana Begu Jaspal Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, the dismissal 28.07.2010 fil (hereinafter re Rupnagar (her dated 09.11.20 2. present appea notice of moti respondent N However, resp E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA egum & Others Vs. & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID None for the appellants. Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate Ms. Shikha, Advocate Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, Advo for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.5. *** PTA, J. The claimants/appellants a issal of their claim petition bea 0 filed by them under Section 166 er referred to as “the Act”) by Mot (hereinafter referred to as “the lea 1.2011. At the very outset, it ma peal pertains to the year 2012. The otion was issued on 09.07.2012; an t No.4/driver of the alleged offen respondent No.4 remains unserve D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1919-2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.02.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA ate dvocate o 3. nts are before this Court against bearing MACT Case No.72 of 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, e learned Tribunal”) vide Award t may be pointed out that the The order sheet reveals that the and fresh notice was issued to ffending vehicle on 02.11.2012. rved till date as the appellants 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document have failed t repeated opp was granted t No.4 within a date. Even no sheets shows appearance o pertaining to absence of lea 3. the impugned dismissed by c was considere up a false case friend of the contradictory claimants was 4. 5. for the respon record in minu 6. the appellant d to furnish correct address of opportunities. Vide order dated 2 ed to the appellants to supply cor in a period of three weeks. The no one has appeared on behalf of ws that learned counsel for the ap e on on several dates. As such to the year 2012, the same is bein f learned counsel for the appellants Learned counsel for the re gned Award, the claim petition o by citing cogent reasons. The evide dered in great detail. It was found case. The sole alleged eyewitness P the deceased. Even the said eye ory versions of the accident becaus was disbelieved. Heard. With the able assistance r spondents, I have gone through th inute detail. Briefly stated the present llants/5 claimants, being the wid s of respondent No.4 despite d 26.10.2016, last opportunity correct address of respondent he same has not been done till lf of the appellants today. Order e appellants had failed to put in uch, as this is an old matter being heard and decided in the ants. e respondents submits that vide n of the appellants has been vidence produced by the parties und that the appellants had put ess PW1 was found to be a close eyewitness had given various ause of which the version of the ce rendered by learned counsel h the case file and perused the sent claim petition was filed by widow, 2 minor children, and 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document parents of d Vehicles Act 9.5.2010decea to Kurali from No. PB-10-BS driven by Sita Satnam Singh point Badali registration N offending veh manner, all of signal in rash against the Mo accident, the Truck. Both S sustained grie but after seein along with the police on Mob at the spot. Hospital, Kura Postmortem f deceased Sitar Mohammad un Act. It was averred in the eceased Sitar Mohammad along-wi from village Chuhar Majra on Moto BS-3316 for their personal works. Sitar Mohammad at normal speed ngh was the pillion rider. When thi ali at about 5.30 A.M., then Sw n No. PB-65-J- 9605 (hereinafter vehicle’),being driven by responden ll of a sudden was taken towards ash and negligent manner, as a resu e Motor Cycle driven by Sitar Moha the head of Sitar Mohammad stru th Sitar Mohammad and Satnam S grievous injuries. Truck driver sto eeing condition of Sitar Mohammad the Truck. Then Satnam Singh gav Mobile Phone No. 100 as a result o Sitar Mohammad and Satnam Kurali, but Sitar Mohammad was de on dead body conducted at Civil under Section 166 of Motor the claim petition, that on with Satnam Singh were going otor Cycle bearing registration rks. The Motor Cycle was being eed on correct side of the road. n this Motor Cycle reached at T- Swaraj Mazda Truck bearing fter referred to as ‘the alleged ndent No.4 in rash and negligent rds Badali road without flashing result of which the same struck ohammad. Due to impact or this struck against the body of the m Singh fell down on road and stopped the Truck at the spot, mad, he ran away from the spot gave telephonic information to lt of which policy party reached am Singh were shifted to Civil s declared dead by the doctors. ivil hospital, Kharar. 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. put forth by t irreconcilable the claimants 8. Satnam Singh 09.05.2010 un statement of has been state at 5:30 am; bu given for this d 9. accident was Report under was caused incomprehens Rider to the d offending veh there is nothin got this inform 10. examination d identified the However, the learned Trib by the claimants and PW1 to be d ble discrepancies and contradictio nts and their witnesses. As per the version of t ingh/PW1, is eyewitness to the 0 under Sections 279,337, 304A, 42 of pillion rider Satnam Singh. How stated in the FIR that the accident but FIR (Ex.P1) was lodged at 8:25 his delay. More importantly, the F as caused by unknown vehicle an der Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW2/A sed by unknown vehicle and ensible that if, PW1 Satnam Singh he deceased, how and why did he n vehicle and the identity of the of othing on record to indicate as to h formation. Furthermore, it was stat on dated 4.2.2011 that the police the owner and driver of the offen Tribunal has found the version be doubtful as there are several ictions in the story put forth by of the claimants, pillion rider the accident. FIR No.66 dated , 427 IPC was registered on the However, first and foremost, it ent had taken place on 9.5.2010 8:25 am. There is no explanation e FIR Ex.P1 records that the e and unknown driver. Even the 2/A), records that the accident and unknown driver. It is ingh was eyewitness and Pillion he not know the number of the e offending driver. Even further, to how PW1 and the claimants stated by PW1 in his cross- lice had traced the vehicle and ffending vehicle. However, PW2 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HC Kamaljit Si the number o supplementar have been giv number of vehicle had ac memo of iden would have be that is not so strong shadow 11. recorded that away from spo However, in c 4.2.2011 has s for a while, an the vehicle nu would not be PW1 in his cro not see the nu these facts, th the offending dated 16.2.20 jit Singh IO of case claims that PW1 er of the vehicle and name of dri ntary statement. Therefore, diamet given by PW1 and PW2 as to h f the offending vehicle came in d actually been identified by the po identification to that effect; and eve e been recorded by the police rega t so in the present case.Needless to dow of doubt on the case put forth Further in Ex.PW2/A as we that the driver of offending vehicle spot due to which number of sam in contradiction thereof, PW1 in h as stated that the driver, after stopp , and thereafter fled away.If that w e number as also the identity of the t be registered against unknown pe s cross-examination has further cat e number of the offending vehicle s, there is nothing on record to indic ing vehicle were identified. Howev 2.2011, PW1 claims to have seen W1 Satnam Singh disclosed him f driver on the following day in metrically contradictory versions o how the name of driver and into the picture.Moreover, if e police, then there would be a even statement of Satnam Singh regarding such identification. But ss to say, all these factors cast a rth by the Claimants. s well as in Ex.P1 it is specifically hicle after causing accident fled same could not be read by PW1. in his cross-examination dated topping the vehicle disembarked at was so, then PW1 would know the driver; and in that event, FIR n person and unknown vehicle. r categorically stated that he did icle nor the driver at the spot.In indicate as to how the driver and wever, in his cross-examination seen the driver but could not 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document identify him. of the decease had been pu compensation 12. Grounds of Ap the complaina in the acciden of the offendin not been cons claim petition The learned T years of age a his love and a the Grounds o 13. multiplier wh throughout th caused to PW1 Grounds of A establish that of offending ve im. It is also relevant that PW1 Satn eased. This would therefore indicat put up merely to support th tion. It is the case of the ap f Appeal that the learned Tribunal ainant/eyewitness Satnam Singh/PW ident in question due to which he di nding vehicle at the time of the acc considered by the learned Tribunal. tion has been dismissed only on gro ed Tribunal also failed to consider ge and the parents were dependen nd affection for their entire life. It i ds of Appeal that:- “9. That ld. Tribunal has wrongly and wrongly calculated the depen Needless to say, there is n when the claim petition has be t the record of the case, there is PW1. This fact has been pleaded for of Appeal. Therefore, the Claima hat the death of Sitar Mohd took p ng vehicle driven by respondent No. Satnam Singh was a close friend dicate that this version of events t the claim petition and get appellants as pleaded in the unal had failed to consider that h/PW1 had also received injuries did not remember the number accident. However, this fact has nal. It has also been pleaded that n ground of minor discrepancies. ider that the deceased was 38 dent upon him and deprived of It is further stated in Para 9 of ngly applied the multiplier i.e. 18 ependency should have 1/5th.” is no question of application of been dismissed. Furthermore, re is no whisper of any injuries d for the first time in the present aimants have been unable to ok place due to the involvement No.4. 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14. the photostat Mohali on 02 representation 15. the impugned 16. 06.02.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo It has also come on record stat copies of the applications filed b 02.06.2010. Thus, it is obvious t ion with SSP for complaining of fal Accordingly, I find no groun ned Award. In view of the above, pr Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No ord that Mark-A and Mark-B are iled by respondent No.4 with SSP us that respondent No.4 made f false implication. round is made out to interfere in , present appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document