Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr.V.K.Garg, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Archana Puri, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants to assail the judgment of dismissal of the claim petition, filed to seek compensation, on account of death of Lalita Devi, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 07.05.2014.

2. In the claim petition, it was averred by the appellants-claimants that on 07.05.2014, Lalita Devi was going on her bicycle from Sector 56 to Section 38, Chandigarh. Further, it was averred that the accident in question was caused by Mohd. Raib-respondent No.1, while driving the scooter bearing registration No.CH-01Y-9267, in a rash and negligent manner and the same resulted into death of Lalita Devi. However, respondent No.1- Mohd. Raib, in connivance with the local police, got lodged FIR against some unknown vehicle, by giving incomplete registration of the car involved in the accident as CH0-4821. Respondent No.1, while hatching a conspiracy with the local police, has projected a false story, just to save his skin. Appellant-claimant No.1 had also approached Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, vide reference No.PW201409869 dated 04.08.2014, but the police did not take any action, which shows the connivance of local police with respondent No.1.

3. Besides the aforesaid, it was also averred that deceased Lalita Devi was 48 years old, at the time of death and she was a housewife. The claimants are husband and children of the deceased. As such, they had sought compensation to the extent of Rs.30 lakh, on account of death of Lalita Devi.

4. In pursuance of the notice issued, respondents No.1 and 2 made appearance. In the written statement, respondent No.1 had taken the plea that the claimants have not approached the Court with clean hands and also took the preliminary objection of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and that no accident took place, as alleged in the claim petition, with the answering respondent. Also, it was averred in the reply that the vehicle i.e. scooter bearing registration No.CH-01Y-9267 of the answering respondent was never involved in the accident. However, it was submitted that respondent No.1 had made the statement before the police and on his statement, FIR was registered against unknown person of offending vehicle i.e. car bearing registration No.CH0-4821, colour white, which was driven in rash and negligent manner and struck the bicycle of the deceased from backside, as a result whereof, the deceased got imbalanced, fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. On merits, the factum of accident, as such, has been denied and all other averments, with regard to the age and the extent of claim asserted, had been denied.

5. Respondent No.2-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., in its separate reply also raised preliminary objections about there to be no cause of action against the answering respondent and the petition is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and the driver of vehicle bearing registration No.CH-01Y-9267 was not holding valid and effective driving licence and that the claim petition has been filed in collusion with respondent No.1. Also, the insurance company disputed the maintainability of the claim petition. On merits, the factum of accident, as such, has been denied. All other averments, having bearing on the assessment of compensation have also been denied.

6. After framing of the issues, appellant-claimant No.1-Kalyan Singh, who is husband of the deceased, stepped into witness box as CW-1 and his sworn testimony, in the form affidavit is Ex.CW1/A and further, he had tendered into evidence documents, which are Ex.C1 to C9. Besides the same, two witnesses, who allegedly witnessed the accident, have been examined i.e. CW-2 Vishal, who affidavit is Ex.CW2/A and CW-3 Narinder, whose affidavit is CW3/A. Also, the claimants examined SI Surinder Singh (wrongly mentioned as PW-2, now be read as CW-4), who is Investigating Officer of the criminal case, qua the accident in question. He had