Smt. Usha Rani and Others vs Rajender Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

CM No. 2859-CII of 2010

There is delay of 160 days in filing the appeal. This is an appeal by the claimants who were not awarded any compensation and rather their

claim petition was dismissed.

Though reply has been filed to the said application, yet nothing material has come in the reply. So for the reasons given in the application, the delay

of 160 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO No. 6554 of 2010

This is an appeal brought by the claimants against dismissal of their claim petition vide award dated 09.12.2009. Learned Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Hisar (for short ''the Tribunal) has returned finding on issue No. 1 against the appellants holding that the accident is not proved to have

been caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-20M-8256 by Rajender Singh, respondent No. 1.

The appellants-claimants claimed that during the night of 04.05.2007 Rajbir, the deceased was going on motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-

23-B-7803 from Uklana to village Bhimawala. He was driving the motorcycle at a moderate speed and was in control of the vehicle. When he

was near the fields of Master Hoshiar Singh situated in between village Bhithmara and Bhimawala, a maruti car bearing registration No. HR-20M-

8256 driven by Rajender Singh, respondent No. 1 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side and struck against the motorcycle,

on account of which the motorcycle fell in the road side ditches. Rajbir is said to have suffered serious injuries in the said accident. He succumbed

to those injuries at the spot. Respondent No. 1 after causing the accident fled from the spot. Hanuman son of Ram Karan, resident of village

Chamar Khera had seen the occurrence, who reported the matter to the police on 18.06.2007.

The claim of the claimants in this regard was denied by the respondents. Respondents No. 1 and 2 claimed that the maruti car in question was

being driven at a normal speed and that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle in question.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Hanuman saw the accident. According to him, for the only reason that he had to go for his

own work and could not inform the police or the relatives of the deceased about the number of the vehicle, he cannot be disbelieved.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that Hanuman is a procured witness, who made statement at the instance

of the appellants to suit them in this case.

It is not a case where any other person had seen the accident. Hanuman did not inform the police or the relatives of the deceased in this regard

for 14 days after the accident. The accident occurred at about 10 or 11 PM in the night and it is admitted case that the driver of the offending

vehicle did not stop at the spot. When the lights of the car were switched on at the time of the accident, it was not possible for anyone to have seen

the driver of the offending vehicle or even seen the registration number of the car. The witness had also wrongly stated the colour of the car as blue

while it was silver colour car. There was no occasion for Hanuman to have come before the police all of a sudden after 14 days of the accident. All

these circumstances have been taken by the Tribunal to conclude that Hanuman is a procured witness as well as the vehicle and the driver are also

convenient, against whom the case could be got prepared. Learned Tribunal has, thus, not been wrong in returning finding on issue No. 1 against

the claimants. The said finding is consequently affirmed. The appeal, therefore, appears to have no merit and is dismissed.