Judgment:
FAO No.5902 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
FAO No.5902 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.07.2014 Sh.
Bigu Rai Yadav & others -----Appellant(s) v.
Mansukh Lal Dashrathbhai & others -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.
2.
To be referred to reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.J.S.Ghumman, Advocate for the appellants.
--- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
Appellants filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of one Ranjeet Rai, who allegedly died due to injuries suffered by him in an accident caused by truck bearing registration No.GJ-7UU-6262 being driven by respondent no.1 which was owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3.
The Tribunal vide impugned judgment, assessed the compensation payable to the appellants @ Rs.2,75,000/-, however, dismissed the claim petition, holding that the it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and also that the appellants failed to prove that the accident in question was caused by respondent no.1 while driving the alleged offending vehicle.
Kumar Ashwani 2014.07.05 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.5902 of 2013 2 Aggrieved from the aforesaid Award, the claimants are in appeal before this Court.
At the outset, it may be noticed that the appellants have not brought any evidence on record to prove their version with regard to causing of accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1.
The appellants have not produced any material evidence in this regard.
In fact, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it was the truck No.HR-55G-7893 driven by the deceased Ranjeet Rai which had hit the other truck bearing registration No.GJ-7UU-6262.
Not only this, though it is the case of the appellants that the deceased was working with M/s Godara Roadways Private Limited, Gurgaon and they were residing in the godown of the aforesaid company, yet they have failed to prove on record any convincing evidence to support the aforesaid assertion on their behalf.
It has also come on record that no other family was residing in the alleged godown which admittedly is not a residential building.
Appellants have failed to lead any supportive evidence to sustain their claim.
In view thereof, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
Dismissed.
July 01, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG].ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.07.05 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh