LISA GILL, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of FAO No.1931 of 1998 and FAO No.1942 of 1999. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Tribunal') vide common award dated 12.01.1998 decided five claim petitions.
(2.) BRIEF facts are that on 22.04.1994, a jeep bearing registration No. HR -03 -4201 driven by Sia Ram was coming from the side of Radaur struck at back of a truck bearing registration No. HYE -4177, which was in a stationary position on the slope of the fly -over in the area of Yamuna Nagar without any parking lights or any indication/sign of its presence. Sia Ram, the driver of the jeep received multiple injuries and Mam Chand, who was travelling in the said jeep on the passenger seat next to the driver died at the spot on account of the severe injuries. Sia Ram removed to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. He was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries on 26.04.1994. The accident is alleged to have taken place due to the negligence of Manjeet Singh, the driver of truck No. HYE -4177. Two petitions titled 'Surti Devi and others v. Tara Singh and others' and 'Sushma and others v. Tara Singh and others' were filed claiming compensation on account of the death of Sia Ram and three petitions titled 'Jarnailo Devi and another v. Manjeet Singh and others', 'Bishni Devi v. Manjeet Singh and others' and 'Phool Wati and others v. Manjeet Singh and others' were filed for compensation on account of the death of Mam Chand. Smt. Bishni Devi is the mother of Mam Chand; Smt. Jarnailo Devi and Phool Wati both claim to be widow of the deceased Mam Chand. Jarnailo Devi claimed compensation for herself and Amrit Kaur, minor daughter of Mam Chand. Smt. Phool Wati claimed compensation for herself and minor daughters Reshma and Amrit Kaur @Amrita. The Tribunal rejected the claim of both Phool Wati and Jarnailo Devi and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,40,660/ - out of which Rs.48,132/ - was awarded to Smt. Bishni Devi, the mother of Mam Chand and Rs.96,264/ - each to minor daughters, Amrit Kaur and Reshma. The present appeals have been preferred by Smt. Jarnailo Devi questioning the finding of the Tribunal in the said award qua the claim petition No.57 of 94 filed by her as well as the claim petition No.79 of 94 filed by Smt. Bishni Devi mother of Mam Chand ­ deceased.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has wrongly rejected the claim of the appellant ­ Jarnailo Devi and that she was, in fact, the widow of deceased ­ Mam Chand. Reference is made to certain documents sought to be placed on record by way of a separate application i.e., C.M. No.10754 -CII of 1998 under Order 41 rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC. A reference is made to the Voters List of the year 1994 and 1995 attached as Annexures A1 and A2 with the abovesaid Civil Misc. application to suggest that appellant ­ Jarnailo Devi was the wife of Mam Chand. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that in the judgment dated 08.11.1996, Annexure A4 with the abovesaid application, the present appellant alongwith others has been arrayed as a legal representative of Mam Chand. The said proceedings were in respect to a claim which had been raised by the deceased ­ Mam Chand regarding illegal termination of his services. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly stated that there is nothing on record of the Tribunal to show the relationship of appellant ­ Jarnailo Devi with the deceased ­ Mam Chand. The said application for additional evidence had, thus, been moved by the appellant as the said documents were not available with her when the matter was pending with the It has come on record that Smt. Bishni Devi, mother of the deceased ­ Mam Chand, has denied any relationship between Jarnailo Devi and Mam Chand. Furthermore, the appellant ­ Jarnailo Devi has wrongly claimed Amrit Kaur to be a daughter of Mam Chand from her womb whereas, it has been admitted by her in her testimony that, in fact, Amrit Kaur is the daughter of Mam Chand from his first wife. The Tribunal has, thus, rightly observed that the appellant in question has told a patent lie to support her claim regarding her marriage with Mam Chand having been performed 12/13 years ago and Amrit Kaur to be living with her. Amrit Kaur has also not been examined before the Tribunal to prove her case. Testimony of Ujjagar Singh, PW6 i.e., a witness belonging to Jarnailo Devi's parental village has been rightly discarded by the Tribunal as the same is not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel for the appellant could not divulge the fate of litigation which is mentioned to be pending in the impugned award, in respect to the legal heirs of Mam Chand before the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri.;