ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This is indeed an unfortunate case, wherein on account of technicalities, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, 'the Claims Tribunal") proceeded to dismiss the Appellants-Claimants' Claim Petition No.75 of 2006 on 13.11.2007. Feeling aggrieved thereof, Claimants preferred FAO No.1543 of 2008, before learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, but unfortunately that also came to be dismissed on 24.3.2009. Thus, unsuccessful Claimants are Appellants before us, praying that looking to the facts and features of the case, either they be awarded just, proper and adequate compensation by this Court itself or if it is found that their Claim Petition is lacking in material particulars and evidence, then matter be remitted to the Claims Tribunal, for fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law.

3. Despite service of notice, Respondent nos.1 and 2, i.e. the owner and driver, have not appeared before us. Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is represented by Smt. Nanita Sharma, Advocate and has filed counter affidavit.

4. In the counter, it is specific case of the Insurance Company that factum of accident has not been established by the Appellants. Since the accident itself could not be proved, the question of grant of compensation to the Appellants for death of Ompal did not arise. It has also been contended that as against findings of two Courts recorded against the Appellants, no case has been made out for interference in this appeal.

5. We have accordingly heard Mr. Yashpal Rangi, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mrs. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and perused the record.

6. Thumbnail sketch of the facts of the case are as mentioned hereinbelow.

7. Deceased Ompal was travelling in a Three Wheeler on 15.5.2006. Deceased was accompanied by co-passenger Sunita and Janak Raj along with others. F.I.R. dated 16.5.2006 was lodged by Sunita, aforesaid co-passenger injured in the same accident. It is said that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Three Wheeler by its driver. On account of it, the same had dashed against the tree due to which Ompal had sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to the same. They had filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, 'the Act') before the Claims Tribunal for awarding compensation to them for death of Ompal.

8. For the reasons beyond the control of the Claimants, they were not able to produce the evidence of co- passengers i.e. Sunita and Janak Raj. They had summoned records of Criminal Case No.196 and evidence of Ahalmad was recorded, which established lodging of the F.I.R. by Sunita on 16.5.2006, the Postmortem Report of the deceased Ompal and his M.L.R. Probably on the strength of the scanty evidence produced before the Claims Tribunal, Claimants were of the opinion that the factum of the accident and death of Ompal have been established. Therefore, they did not think it proper or necessary to examine co-passengers of the Three Wheeler. In the result, the Claim Petition came to be dismissed. The appeal filed by them also proved to be futile.

9. Here, the Appellants have filed affidavit of Janak Raj and they have also taken us through the statement of Sunita, recorded by Police under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, after she had lodged the F.I.R.

10. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are of the considered opinion that one more opportunity should be given to the Appellants so that they may be able to prove the factum of the accident and if they are able to do so successfully, then they may also be able to get just, adequate and proper compensation. Only on account of hyper-technicality and niceties of law, Claimants should not be thrown out at the threshold. That is not the purpose for which the Claims Tribunals are established.

11. No doubt, it is true that claim case has not been contested in a proper