Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Sumitra And Ors vs Om Parkash And Ors on 4 July, 2013
F.A. O. No. 5382 of 2012(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 5382 of 2012
Date of decision:-04.07.2013
Smt. Sumitra and ors.
....... Appellants
Versus
Om Parkash and ors.
........ Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Sandeep Parkash Chahar, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
CM No.24243 -CII of 2012 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
FAO No. 5382 of 2012 This is an appeal brought by the claimants against the award dated 19.03.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide which the claim petition has been dismissed on the ground that the F.A. O. No. 5382 of 2012(O&M) -2- claimants failed to prove the accident in question resulting in death of Bijender Singh to have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-46D-6375 by respondent no.1-Om Parkash.
The case of the claimants has been that on 03.11.2009 Bijender Singh was going from village Kiloi to village Ritoli on a scooter bearing registration No. DL-8SM- 5212. He was driving the scooter at a moderate speed. When he was on Sonepat road near village Bohar, a truck bearing registration No. HR-46D-6375 came from his back side in a rash and negligent and had hit the scooter. Bijender Singh was crushed under the truck. He died at the spot and the driver of the truck fled away from the spot alongwith the truck. The police lodged a report regarding this accident.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the driver of the offending truck confessed before Narender son of Amir Singh of his causing this accident. According to him, respondent no.1 has been facing trial in the case got registered by the appellants with regard to this accident. According to him, the evidence was, therefore, sufficient before the Tribunal to hold issue no.1 in faovur of the claimants. F.A. O. No. 5382 of 2012(O&M) -3-
I disagree with learned counsel for the appellants. The only evidence to prove issue no.1 has been the alleged extra judicial confession made by the driver of the offending vehicle. Only a copy of the said statement was placed on record as Ex.R2. The person before whom, the alleged extra judicial confession was made, was not examined by the claimants.
So it is a case where there was no eye witness of the occurrence, who could tell that the accident was caused by the driver of the offending vehicle by driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. Even the evidence of extra judicial confession was not led by examining Narender son of Amir Singh before whom, respondent no.1 was alleged to have confessed his involvement in the accident. In this situation, the Tribunal was wholly justified in returning finding on issue no.1 against the claimants. Affirming the finding of the Tribunal on issue no.1, I find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same in limine.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 04.07.2013 JUDGE dinesh