Amol Rattan Singh, J.

1. The three appellants in this appeal are the parents and sister of Narinder Kumar who, unfortunately, succumbed, on 14.05.1999, to the injuries on his person, as a result of a motor vehicle accident which took place on 13.05.1999.

2. The facts, as taken from the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, dated 12.11.2012, are that when the said Narinder Kumar was riding a scooter between Rajpura and Ambala, with his brother-in-law, Umesh Kumar, riding pillion behind him, the scooter had just crossed the Petrol Pump at Devi Nagar, when truck bearing registration No.HR-37-6195, came from the side of Ambala at a high speed and because the driver of the truck could not control the truck, it struck against the scooter resulting in injuries to Narinder Kumar and Umesh Kumar.

Narinder Kumar is stated to have been taken to the Civil Hospital at Ambala, from where he was referred to the PGIMER, Chandigarh, where he unfortunately died. He is stated to have been only 26 years of age.

3. Respondents no.1 and 2, i.e. the owner and driver of the truck, contested the claim petition jointly, which was also separately contested by respondent no.3, i.e. the Insurance Company with which the said truck was insured.

4. Though the ownership of the truck was admitted by respondents no.1 and 2, the factum of the accident having taken place was denied and, additionally, the Insurance Company also alleged collusion between the first two respondents and the claimants, i.e. the present appellants.

5. The first issue framed by the Tribunal was whether the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2, while on the wheel of the aforesaid truck.

The Tribunal, after appraising the evidence before it, came to the conclusion that the factum of the accident having taken place at all with truck bearing registration No.HR-37-6195, could not be proved and therefore, no relief could be granted to the appellants-claimants by holding the respondents liable for the same. Consequently, the claim petition, which had been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was dismissed, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

6. The Tribunal came to its finding on account of the following facts:-

i) The FIR in respect of the accident came to be lodged only 3 months and 12 days after the date of the accident, i.e. on 25.08.1999;

ii) Despite the police having visited the PGI, Chandigarh, on 14.05.199, the registration number of the truck or the identity of the driver/owner thereof was not disclosed by the complainant, Umesh Kumar, who later appeared before the Tribunal as PW2;

iii) That though PW2 had testified that when the police approached him on 14.05.1999 at 7:00 PM, at the PGI, Chandigarh, they had taken his signatures on a blank paper for recording the FIR and he had informed the police about the registration number of the offending vehicle, these facts were not pleaded in the claim petition;

iv) That even a perusal of the FIR (Ex.P3 before the Tribunal) showed that it was recorded by the police on the basis of the statement given by Umesh Kumar on 25.08.1999 but even therein, it was not mentioned that Umesh Kumar had given the registration number of the offending vehicle when the police visited him at Chandigarh on 14.05.1999.

v) Umesh Kumar had, in fact, stated in the FIR that he had made enquiries about the truck and thereafter had come to know that Narinder Kumar was hit by truck bearing registration No.HR-37-6195, driven by respondent no.2, thus proving that Umesh Kumar had not seen the registration number of the truck which had allegedly hit the scooter on which Narinder Kumar and he were travelling;

vi) That though PW2, Umesh Kumar, had testified that he had made an application to the Superintendent of Police, the same was never produced in Court, which showed that, in fact, no such application had been made and that the matter was actually reported to the police on 25.08.19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document