(203) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.38 of 1994 Date of decision: 16.7.2014 Inder Pal ….Appellant Versus Mohan Lal ….
Respondent Present: None for the appellant.
None for respondent No.1 Mr.Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for respondent No.3- Oriental Insurance Company, Jagadhri.
*** S.S.Saron, J.
This appeal has been filed by Inder Pal against the judgment and award dated 5.10.1993 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (‘Tribunal’ – for short).The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’ – for short) seeking compensation for the demise of his son namely Ajay, who was 15/16 years of age, in a motor vehicle accident.
Ajay, the son of the appellant on 27.8.1991 was coming on his cycle from Bus Stand, Jagadhri towards Ambala side.
When he reached near Tehsil Office, the offending auto rickshaw came from the opposite side.
It was being driven by Mohan Lal (respondent No.1).According to the claimants, it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
The auto rickshaw struck against the cycle of Ajay and he fell down.
He was taken to the hospital with multiple injuries.
On the advice of the doctORS.he was shifted to PGI, Chandigarh.
Ajay died on AMIT KHANCHI201408.01 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.38 of 1994 [2].28.8.1991.
The deceased Ajay was a domestic servant and was earning Rs.1000/- per month.
The learned Tribunal noticed that there was only the statement of Ramesh Chand (PW-2) who stated that Ajay was on his cycle and was coming from the side of Jagadhri Bus Stand towards Ambala side.
A three-wheeler being driven by a Hindu gentleman came from the opposite side and struck against the vehicle.
He (Ramesh Chand – PW2) had seen the accident.
It had occurred due to the fault of the driver of the offending three- wheeler.
In cross-examination, Ramesh Chand (PW-2) stated that he could not tell the number of the three-wheeler nor could he (PW- 2) tell the name of the driver of the three-wheeler.
Mohan Lal (respondent No.1) appeared as RW-1 and he denied that he had caused any such accident.
He stated that the alleged three-wheeler belonged to his brother Sham Lal and he had purchased the same from Kuldip Singh (respondent No.2).It is further stated that Sham Lal, brother of Ramesh Chand (PW-2) used to drive the said scooter and he never drove the said scooter.
The learned Tribunal in the circumstances held that there was no evidence of the claimant that the accident had occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the three-wheeler in question which is stated to be driven by Mohan Lal (respondent No.1).In view of the said finding, the claimant it was held was not entitled for any compensation.
The case was listed for hearing on 26.3.2014 and Mr.R.L.Gupta, Advocate appeared for the appellant.
Thereafter, it was taken up on 2.4.2014 and Mr.Himanshu, Advocate for the AMIT KHANCHI appellant.
Time was taken to enable the appellant to get a copy of 2014.08.01 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.38 of 1994 [3].the FIR relating to the accident.
The case was then taken up on 9.7.2014 on which date, none appeared for the appellant.
It was adjourned to today and today again, no one has appeared for the appellant.
In the circumstances, it appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in default in terms of Order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
16.7.2014 (S.S.Saron) amit Judge AMIT KHANCHI201408.01 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh