- (1.) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short), Kurukshetra had dismissed the claim petition of the appellants. Aggrieved of the said order, claimants came in appeal. Compensation was claimed on account of death of Jasvinder Kumar alias Pawan in the roadside accident on 17.5.2002.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence on record the way it was required to be and rather on the basis of irrelevant and minor contradictions, dismissed the claim. Reference was made by learned counsel for the appellants to the statement of Chander Pal, Sub Inspector, who appeared as PW2 and was the Investigating Officer regarding the criminal case registered against the driver of the tractor in question. It was contended that from the statement of the witness, it was clear that FIR was registered on 16.6.2002 on the statement of Mam Chand and charge sheet was filed in the court by the police against the driver of the tractor. The said evidence was a relevant fact to show that the accident was caused by respondent No.1.
(3.) It was further contended that Rajbir (PW3) was the eye witness, who stated that he had witnessed the accident but had not reported the matter to the police. After one month of the accident, he happened to be present in Police Station Ladwa to meet his relative, where complainant in the FIR i.e. Mam Chand (who was also the father of the deceased) had come and the relative of the witness told him that the son of Mam Chand had died in an accident but the vehicle and the driver could not be traced. It was then that Rajbir informed the police about the accident witnessed by him one month earlier and the criminal case was registered on the statement of Mam Chand.;