- (1.) At the previous hearing on 29.11.2010, the counsel for the claimants namely Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, was not present, and therefore, I had directed the case to be posted after printing his name in the cause list. Today when the case is taken up, again the counsel for the claimants is not present. I have proceeded to examined the case in the presence of the counsel for the Appellant and the counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle alleged to have been involved in the accident.
(2.) The appeal arises out of a claim for compensation for a death of a police constable in a motor accident alleged to have taken place at the time when the deceased going with another person in a scooter had been hit by yet another motor vehicle at 11.30 in the night near Rajpura on 17.07.2000. A case had been registered against the insured's vehicle and the driver was apprehended nearly 20 days after the incident. The attempt on the side of the claimants was to show that although the FIR did not disclose the name and identity of the vehicle which was involved in the accident, a statement was recorded through PW5-Seo Ram, who was alleged to have seen the accident, claimed that he was travelling in a truck which was following the insured's Tata sumo car and he had known that the Tata sumo dashed against the scooter and sped past without stopping the same. It was on this evidence that the Tribunal held the involvement of the insured's vehicle as having been established to make the insurer liable.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company points out that the FIR itself did not reveal the involvement of the insured's vehicle and the relevant portion in the FIR which was alleged at the instance of one Joginder Singh was that he was on night patrol duty on the day and he had seen several vehicles going towards Rajpura including trucks, car and Tata sumo and he heard a loud sound and ran to the site to see a dead body in the ditches and a Bajaj Chetak scooter was lying nearby. A little ahead, another dead body was also lying. The FIR makes a definite FAO No. 2353 of 2007 (O&M) - 3-reference to Tata sumo but gives no details of any particular identity with reference to the registration or the colour of the vehicle. PW5, who was brought to say that the insured's vehicle had been involved, was subjected to cross-examination and since he stated that he was travelling in a truck, he was enquired about the identity of the truck, the number of persons travelling and the persons, who were travelling along with him. His evidence as regards the so-called presence at that time hardly evokes any confidence. His evidence was as under: ...There were four persons sitting in the truck but I cannot tell their names sitting in the truck. I cannot tell the name of the driver of the truck. I had not been seen what was loaded in the truck but it seem that it was unloaded. This truck did not stop any octroi post. I cannot tell the number of the truck. It is wrong to suggest that I was not travelling in any truck on 17.7.2000 as alleged by me in my affidavit Ex.P7....;