- (1.) Leave granted. 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 there of, 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.
(2.) 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.
(3.) 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.;