IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 342 of 2010

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Jai Pal Singh and another …Petitioners

Versus

Amarjit Singh and another …Respondents

REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF

OF PETITIONER

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

I, Jai Pal Singh adult so~ of Sh. Narata Ram R/o Village

Rattanheri, Tehsil and District Ambala came down to New Delhi to

hereby solemnly affirm and state as under :

1. That I am the petitioner in the present case hence am well

conversant with the facts and circumstance the above

case.

2. That I have gone through the contents of Rejoinder

Affidavit and have understood the same.

3. That in reply to the Counter Affidavit it is vehemently

submitted that contents of same are wrong and hence

denied except otherwise specifically admitted in the body

of rejoinder affidavit.
4. That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that the

son of petitioner succumbed to injuries due to the reason

that his motorcycle met with an accident with the truck of

respondent bearing No HYX 750 on 26.07.2002. The local

police has thoroughly investigated the case and found that

the truck of respondent No. 1 has caused the said

accident. Therefore, the finding of ld. Tribunal and the

Hon’ble High Court is perverse since the local police after

thorough and proper investigation submitted a final report

under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure against

the same truck which caused the accident with son of

petitioner, driven rashly and negligently by respondent

No.1.

5. That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that the ld.

court of Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Ambala vide order

dated 18.09.2003 taken the cognizance against

respondent No. 1 for the offences punishable under

Section 279/338/304 A IPC for rash and negligent Driving

by him causing death of son of the petitioner. The said

order dated 18.09.2003 is being produced herein below :

I, Seema Singhal, HCS, Judicial Magistrate 1st

Class, Ambala Cantt. do hereby charge you (Amarjeet

Singh) as under :-

That you on 26.7.2002 within the area of Police

Station Mahesh Nagar, drove a truck bearing No.

HYX/750 on a public way, in manner so rash and

 negligent as to endanger human life and personal

safety of others and that you thereby committed an

offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and within

my cognizance.

Secondly, on the same date, time and place, while

you driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid

manner, you caused grievous hurt to Kulwant Singh

and that you hereby committed an offence

punishable under Section 338 IPC and within my

cognizance.

Thirdly, on the same date, time and place, while you

driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner,

you caused death of Jasbir Singh and that you

thereby committed an offence punishable under

Section 304-A IPC and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried by me on the

above said charge.

RO& AC. Sd/-

JMIC/18.9.2003

The copy of the said order is being annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P-2.

6. That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that apart

from independent eye witnesses the police/ investigating

officers who investigated the case thoroughly deposed

before the ld. trial court in Crl. Case No. 146/17.05.03

 and clearly stated that the truck No. HYX-750 caused the

said accident on 26.07.2002 by way of rash and negligent

driving and resultantly so~ of petitioner has died. The said

witnesses have neither any enmity with the respondents

nor connected with the petitioner hence the testimonies of

the said witnesses must be accepted as creditworthy and

beyond any reasonable doubt and clinching. Therefore the

petitioner is entitled for the compensation as claimed in

his claim petition before the ld. Tribunal.

7. That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that it is

well settle law that no person is allowed to do indirectly

whatever he cannot do directly and in the present case the

local police has filed the challan after collecting the

material evidences against respondent No. 1 and his truck

bearing no. HYX/ 750 which caused said accident on

26.07.2002 in a broad day light and taken away young life

of son of petitioner due to rash and negligent driving.

Therefore, the respondents cannot escape from their civil

liabilities.

Reply to0the Preliminary Objections of counter affidavit

filed by respondent No. 2.

1. That the contents of corresponding para needs no reply.

2 to 4. That the contents of corresponding para are absolutely

wrong hence and vehemently denied. Further the

 submission made herein above is being reiterated and

reaffirmed.

5. That the contents of corresponding para of counter affidavit

filed by respondent No. 2 is false and misleading because of

the reason that the local police has after thorough

investigation found involvement of the said truck bearing

no. HYX/750 in the accident and filed charge sheet and

further the Ld. Trial Court has also taken cognizance

against the respondent. More over the deposition of

witnesses before the Ld. Trial Court has been completed

and the judgment is about to come at any time.

Thus, it is clear that the respondent no. 2 has not

approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and taken

false plea with connivance with respondent no. 1 to escape

from his civil liability therefore Special Leave may be

granted for the end and in the interest of justice.

PARAWISE REPLY : -

That the contents of Special Leave to Appeal is being

strongly relied and reiterated. There is substantial question

of law involved in the present Special Leave to Appeal as to

whether a challan filed by local police after thorough

investigation (against the truck bearing No. HYX 750

causing accident and taken away the life of a person due to

rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 1) be

discarded for determination of civil liabilities. More so, the

 question of law, grounds mentioned in the Special Leave

Petition is being reiterated and not mention here in to avoid

repetitiveness.

That no new facts, which has not pleaded before the ld.

Courts below have pleaded in this Rejoinder Affidavit.

Therefore, in above mentioned facts and circumstances

your lordship may be please to grant the Special Leave for

the end and interest of justice as present case requires an

urgent and needful interference of your lordship.

VERIFICATION: -

Verified at New Delhi on this the day of April 2011, I the

above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the

above affidavit are true and correct as per my knowledge and belief.

No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed

therefrom.

DEPONENT
 State Versus Amarjeet Singh

CHARGE SHEET :

I, Seema Singhal, HCS, Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class,

Ambala Cantt. do hereby charge you (Amarjeet Singh) as under :-

That you on 26.7.2002 within the area of Police Station

Mahesh Nagar, drove a truck bearing No. HYX/750 on a public way,

in manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life and

personal safety of others and that you thereby committed an offence

punishable under Section 279 IPC and within my cognizance.

Secondly, on the same date, time and place, while you

driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner, you caused

grievous hurt to Kulwant Singh and that you hereby committed an

offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and within my cognizance.

Thirdly, on the same date, time and place, while you

driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner, you caused

death of Jasbir Singh and that you thereby committed an offence

punishable under Section 304-A IPC and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried by me on the above

said charge.

RO& AC. Sd/-

JMIC/18.9.2003

Certified that the contents of the above said charge have

been read over and explained to the accused in simple Hindi.

 Sd/-

JMIC/18.9.2003

Statement of the accused Amarjeet Singh son of Bodh Raj r/o House

No. 4430/3, Mohalla Kajiwara Ambala City. Age 43 years .

Q. Have you heard and understood the charge?

Ans. Yes, Sir.

Q. Do you plead guilty and claim trial?

Ans. I do not plead guilty and claim trial

Sd/-

JMIC/18.9.2003

Seal & signed

28.01.2011

//TRUE COPY //
 In the Court of Sh. Rajnish K. Sharma, JMIC, Ambala

Crl. Case No. 146/17.05.2003

P. for 17.02.2011.

State Vs. Amarjit Singh S/o Sh. Bodh Raj,

R/o H. No. 4430/3, Kajiwara

Mohalla, Ambala City.

F.I.R. No. 174/26.07.2002

U/Ss 279/338/304-A IPC

P.S. Mahesh Nagar

Copy of Charge sheet

Seal & Signed

28.01.11

//TRUE COPY //
 LISTING PROFORMA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

1. Name of the matter Civil/Criminal

2. Name(s) of petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) – Jai Pal Singh and another
3. Name(s) of Respondent (s) – Amarjit Singh and another
4. Number of case – SLP (C) No. _____________ of 2009
5. Advocate for the Petitioner(s) – Dr. Kailash Chand
6. Advocate for the Respondent(s) – N.A.
7. Section dealing the matter – IV B
8. Date of Impugned Order/ Judgment – 20.10.2008
8A. Name of Hon'ble Judges – Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
8B. In Land Acquisition Matters :
i) Notification/ Govt. Order No. (U/s 4,6s) – N.A.
dated __________ Issued by Centre/State of __________
ii) Exact purpose of acquisition & Village Involved ________
8C. In Civil Matters :-
i) Suit No. Name of Lower Court –
Date of judgment –
8D. In Writ Petitins :-
“ Catchword” of other similar matters-) – N.A.
8E. In case of Motor Vehicle Accident Matters :-
Vehicle No. – N.A
8F. In Service Matters :-
i) Relevant Service Rules, if any – N.A.
ii) G.O./ Circular/ Notification, if applicable or in question –
8G. In Labour Industrial Disputes Matters:-
I.D. Reference/ Award No, applicable – N.A.
9. Nature of Urgency – Most Urgent.
10. In case it is a Tax Matters :-
a) Tax amount involved in the matter – N.A.
b) Whether a reference/statement of the case was called for or
rejected – N.A.
c) Whether similar tax matters of same parties filed earlier (may be for
earlier / other Assessment Year? – N.A.
d) Exemption Notification/Circular No. – N.A.
11. Valuation of matter – N.A.
12. Classification of the matter – 18, (1807)
(Please fill up the number & name of relevant category with sub category
as per the list circulated.
No. of Subject Category with full name – 18 Ordinary Civil Matters
No. of Subject Category with full name – 1807 Others
13. Title of the Act involved (Centre/State) –
(a) Sub-Classification (indicate Section /Article of the Status –

(b) Sub-Section involved –

(c) Title of the Rules involved(Centre/State) – Concurrent.
(d) Sub-Classification (indicate Rule/Sub-rule of the Statute)
14. Point of law and question of law raised in the case – whether the
trustworthy of prosecution eye witnesses can be ignored
particularly when the accident took place in broad day light at
2.15 P.M. on 26.7.2002 and challan was also presented in the a
case titled as State Vs. Amarjeet vide FIR No. 174 of 26.7.2002
against the same respondent No. 1 by the local Police?
15. Whether matter is not to be listed before any Hon'ble Judge?
Mention the name of the Hon'ble Judge – N.A.
16. Particulars of identical/ similar cases, if any.
a) Pending Cases – N.A.
b) Decided cases with citation – N.A.
17A. Was S.L.P/ Appeal/Writ filed against same impugned
judgment/Order earlier? If yes, particulars – N.A.
18. Whether the petition is against interlocutory/ final order/ decree in the
case – Final Order.
19. If it is a fresh matter, please state the name of the High Court and the
Coram in the impugned judgment/Order – Hon'ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Single Judge.
20. If the matter was already listed in the Court :
a) What was listed? – N.A.
b) What was Coram? – N.A.
c) What was the direction of the Court – N.A.
21. Whether a date has already been fixed either by Court or on being
mentioned, for the hearing of matter? If so, please indicate the dated
fixed – N.A.
22. Is there a Caveator? If so, whether a notice has been issued to him? –
23. Whether date entered in the Computer? – N.A.
24. If it is a criminal matter, please state: –
q) Whether accused has surrendered – N.A.
b) Nature of Offence, i.e. Convicted under section with Act – N.A.
c) Sentenced awarded – N.A.
d) Sentence already undergone by the accused – N.A.
25. (i) FIR/RC/etc. – N.A.
Date of Registratin of FIR etc. – N.A.
Name & Place of the Police Station – N.A.
(i) Name & Place of Trial Court – N.A.
Case No. in Trial Court and Date of Judgment – N.A.
(ii) Name and Place of 1st Appellate Court – N.A.
Case No. in 1st Appellate Court & date of judgment – N.A.

Date /12/09

Dr. Kailash Chand

Advocate for Plaintiff/s Appellant/s Applicant/s Petiti ner/s
Defendant/s Respondent/s Intervenor/s Caveator/s Opposite Parties
Library 2, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-1
CODE NO.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL /CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SLP (C)/SLP (CRL.)/CIVIL APPEAL/CRL APPEAL NO. OF 2009

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Jai Pal Singh and another …..Petitioners

Versus

Amarjit Singh and another … Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/ are within time.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of

_________ days in filing the same against order dated
______________ and petition for Condonation of ___________
days delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of ___________ days in re-filing the petition

and petition for Condonation of _________ days delay in
re-filing has been filed.

BRANCH OFFICER

New Delhi
Dated :
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2009

(Arising out of the Impugned Judgement and final order dated

20.10.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh in F.A.O No. 2217 of 2006).

IN THE MATTER OF :

Jai Pal Singh and another …..Petitioners

Versus

Amarjit Singh and another … Respondents

WITH

I.A. No of 2009 Application for Condonation of delay in

filing Special Leave Petition

(P A P E R - B O O K)

(FOR INDEX: KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER : (DR. KAILASH CHAND)

INDEX
Sl.No. Particulars. Pages.

1. Office Report on Limitation. 'A'

2. Listing Performa A1- A2

3. Check List A3 – A4

4. Synopsis/List of Dates & Events. B–I

5. Copy of judgment/Order dated

20.10.2008 passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh in F.A.O No. 2217 of 2006.

6. Special Leave Petition with Affidavit.

7. Annexure-P-1:
The copy of the said order dated 9.8.2005
passed by the ld. Court of MACT, Ambala
in MACT case No. 34 of 18.4.2003

8. I.A. No of 2009
Application for Condonation of delay in
filing Special Leave Petition
 SYNOPSIS/ LIST OF DATES

The present Special Leave to Appeal is arising out of the Final

order and impugned order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in

F.A. O. No. 2217 of 2006 whereby the Hon’ble High Court was

pluased to pass a perverse, unreasonable and illegal order

ignoring the material proposition as a case titled as State Vs.

Amarjeet Singh (respondent) bearing F.I.R. No. 174 dated

26.07.2002 under Section 279/338/304-A IPC is still pending

and the local police has also filed challan against the same

respondent who caused accident through rash and negligent

driving of his truck bearing No. HYX 750 on 26.7.2002

resultantly son of petitioner has died. More so, the Hon’ble High

Court wrongly ignored the creditworthy evidences of

eyewitnesses wh saw the accident and thoroughly deposed

before the ld. Trial Court.

It is pertinent to mention here that due to rash and negligent

driving of truck bearing No. HYX 750 by the respondent has

taken away the life of Jasbir Singh (deceased), son of petitioner

the age of 18 years and leaving the destitute

petitioners/pare~ts. Further it is admitted juxtaposition that

the son of petitioner has expired due to the said accident but

evidences against the respondents were wrongly brushed aside

by the Hon’ble Courts below. An independent witness without

any enmity to respondents deposed before the ld. Trial Court

and the local police has also filed a challan against the same
 truck bearing No. HYX 750 for the said accident therefore

urgent indulgence of this Hon’ble Court is required in the end

and interest of justice.

26.07.2002 That the brief facts of the present case are that on

dated 26.7.2002 Jasbir Singh (deceased) along with

Kulwant Singh was going on his Motor cycle from his

Village to Ambala Cantt. and Jasbir Singh was driving

motorcycle, and when they reached near the “Tangri”

bridge a truck bearing registration No. HYX-750 whych

was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and

negligently came from behind and while overtaking hit

the motorcycle in the right side, due to which the

motorcycle fell down and both the riders suffered

injuries. On the way to0hospital Jasbir Singh

succumbed to his injuries and Kulwant Singh was

admitted in the hospital. The first information report

was lodged by Sh. Gurmel Singh Sarpanch of Village

Rattenheri at Police Station Mahesh Nagar on

26.7.2002 and the accident was witnessed by number

of persons including Anil Kumar and Sushma Rani.

It is pertinent to mention here that the above said eye

witnesses of the accident has come forward to depose

before the ld. Trial Court without any enmity against

the respondents and Local Police has also presented

the challan in FIR No. 174 dated 26.07.2002 unter

Section 279/338/304-A IPC against the respondent

 herein and also found the involvement of the said

truck bearing No. HYX 750 in the said accident

causing death of petitioner’s so~ leaving parents in

loneliness.

It is further pertinent to mention here that the

respondents with connivance of each other to defeat

the criminal as well as civil liability arose out from the

said accident very clever fully managed and prepared

the fabricated documents. Further it is admitted

juxtapositin that the accident has occurred in broad

day light at 2.15 P.M and the truck vide No. HYX 750

as well as his driver respndent No. 1 are very easily

identifed by the independent eye witnesses of the said

accident therefore even and other wise also the ld.

Court below misconstrued the facts and wrongly held

that involvement of the said truck is not proved.

9.8.2005 The ld. Trial Court while entertaining the MACT case

No. 34 of 18.4.2003 on 09.08.2005 wrngly brushed

aside cogent and convincing evidences adduced by the

petitioners and was pleased to reject the claim of

petitioners. Further the ld. Trial Court has ignored that

the said accident took place in broad day light at 2.15

P.M. and truck bearing No. HYX 750 and the

respondent No.1 is very easily identified by the

independent prosecution witnesses. Moreover the local

police has also presented the challan against the

 respondent for the said accident in a case title as State

Vs. Amarjeet bearing FIR No. 174 dated 26.7.2002 U/s

279/338/304-Q IPC. The copy of the said order dated

9.8.2005 passed in MACT case No. 34 of 18.4.2003 by

the ld. Court of MACT, Ambala is being annexed

herewith & marked as Annexure P-1.

2.10.2008 The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order

filed F.A.O. No. 2217 of 2006 before the Hon’ble High

Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The Single

Bench of the Hon’ble High Court while entertaining the

said F.A.O. on 20.10.2008 was pleased to dismiss the

same.

.12.2009 Hence the present Special Leave Petition.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2009

IN THE MATTER OF:-

BETWEEN : POSITION OF PARTIES

In the High In this Hon'ble

Court Court
1. Jai Pal Singh Petitioner Petitioner
son of Sh. Narata Ram No. 1 No. 1

2. Smt. Narati Devi Petitioner Petitioner

W/o Sh. Jai Pal Singh, No. 2 No. 2
Both r/o Village Rattanheri,
Tehsil and District Ambala.

Versus

1. Amarjit Singh S/o Sh. Bodh Raj, Respondent Contesting

R/o H. No. 4430/3, Kajiwara No. 1 Respondent
Mohalla, Ambala City. No. 1

2. The New India Assurance Co. Respondent Contesting

Ltd. Nr : Vijay Cinema, Ambala No. 2 Respondent
City, through its Manager, vide No. 2
Policy No. 353502/31/02 /
00870 valid from 30.4.2002
to029.4.2003.

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India,

And His Companion Justices of the

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

The humble Petition of the

Petitioners above-named;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The petitioner is filing the present petitin seeking Special

Leave to Appeal against the Impugned and final order dated

20.10.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O No. 2217 of 2006 whereby the

Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the same.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:

The following questions of law arise for consideration by this

Hon'ble Court:

(a) Whether the trustwrthy of prosecution eye witnesses can

be ignored particularly when the accident took place in

broad day light at 2.15 P.M. on 26.7.2002 and challan was

also presented in the a case titled as State Vs. Amarjeet

vide FIR No. 174 of 26.7.2002 against the same

respondent No. 1 by the local Police?

(b) Whether it is just and proper to ignore the claim of

destitute parents/petitiner who lost their young son at

the age of 18 years due to the said accident committed by

respondent by rash & negligent driving of his truck

bearing No. HYX 750?

(c) Whether petitioner is entitle for claim as claimed in his

claim petition?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2):

 The petitioner states that no other petitin for Special Leave to

Appeal has been filed by him against the impugned Judgment

and final order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O No. 2217

of 2006.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:

The Annexures P-1 to P- produced alongwith the SLP are true

copies of the pleadings/documents, which formed part of the

records of the case in the Court/Tribunal below against whose

order the Leave to Appeal is sought for in this Petition.

5. GROUNDS:

Leave to Appeal is sought on the following grounds.

A) That this Hon'ble Court may please appreciate that the

trustwrthy of prosecution eye witnesses can never be

doubted as the accident took place in broad day light at 2.15

P.M. on 26.7.2002 and challan was also presented in the a

case titled as State Vs. Amarjeet vide FIR No. 174 of

26.7.2002 against the same respondent No. 1 by the local

Police.

B) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that the case

titled as State Vs. Amarjeet Singh (respondent) bearing F.I.R.

No. 174 dated 26.07.2002 under Section 279/338/304-A

IPC is still pending and the local police has also filed challan

against the same respondent who caused accident through

rash and negligent driving his truck bearing No. HYX 750 on
 26.7.2002 due to which son of petitioners has died. More

over, Hon’ble High Court wrongly and unreasonably ignored

the creditworthy evidences of eyewitnesses wh saw the

accident and thoroughly deposed before the ld. Trial Court

without any prior enmity.

C) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that it is

neither just nor proper to ignore the claim of destitute

parents/petitiner who lost their young son at the age of 18

years due to the said accident committed by respondent by

rash & negligent driving of his truck bearing No. HYX 750.

D) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that it is

admitted juxtapositin that the accident has occurred in

broad day light at 2.15 P.M and the truck vide No. HYX 750

as well as his driver respondent No. 1 are very easily

identified by the independent eye witnesses of the said

accident therefore even and other wise also the ld. Court

below misconstrued the facts and wrongly held that

involvement of the said truck is not proved.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

NIL.

7. MAIN PRAYER:The Petitioner most respectfully prays that

this Hon'ble Court may pleased to:

(a) grant Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India, against the impugned judgment and

 Final order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O No.

2217 of 2006;

(b) pass any other order and further order or orders as this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

NIL.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS

IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

DRAWN BY: FILED BY:

SHIKHA ROY (DR. KAILASH CHAND)

& Advocate for the Petitioner
AJIT KUMAR
Advocates

New Delhi.

Drawn on: .12.2009

Filed on : .12.2009
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2009

IN THE MATTER OF :

Jai Pal Singh and another …..Petitioners

Versus

Amarjit Singh and another … Respondents

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the

pleadings before the Court/Tribunal whose order is challenged and

the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional

facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or relied upon

in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of

the documents/annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition are

necessary to answer the question of law raised in the petition or to

make out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for

consideration of this Hon'ble Court. This certificate is given on the

basis of the instructins given by the petitioner/person authorised by

the petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the S.L.P.

NEW DELHI. FILED BY:

FILED ON: .12.2009

(DR. KAILASH CHAND)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2009

IN THE MATTER OF :

Jai Pal Singh and another …..Petitioners

Versus

Amarjit Singh and another … Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Jai Pal Singh son of Sh. Narata Ram r/o Village

Rattanheri, Tehsil and District Ambala at present at New Delhi, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -

1. That I am the Petitioner of the above mentioned case and am

competent to swear to this affidavit.

2. That I have read the accompanying Special Leave Petition

containing pages to (paragraphs 1 to grounds I to ),
List of dates (Pages B to ), interlocutory applications and
understood the contents thereof. The facts stated there in are
true and correct from the record of the case, which I believe to
be true.

3. That the Annexures are true copies of their respective originals.

VERIFICATION: -

Verified at New Delhi on this the day of December 2009, I

the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct. No part of it is false and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

I.A. No. of 2009

In

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2009

IN THE MATTER OF :

Jai Pal Singh and another …..Petitioners

Versus

Amarjit Singh and another … Respondents

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN

FILING THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

And His Companion Justices of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

The humble petition of the

Petitioner above-named;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. That the petitioner has this day filed the accompanying

Special Leave Petition before this Hon’ble Court against the impugned

judgment and final order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Hon'ble

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O No. 2217

of 2006.

2. That the facts and circumstances have been set out in the

aforesaid Special Leave Petition. The petitioner craves leave of this

Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely upon the contents of the same for

the sake of present application.

3. That the delay has occurred in filing Special Leave Petition

because of the reason that after the pronouncement of the impugned

Judgment, the certified copy of the impugned order was applied for

on 28.07.2009.

4. That the certified copy of the same has been received on

04.08.2009. After receiving the certified copy it was se~t to the

Petitioner’s Advocate at Chandigarh for getting his opinion whether to

file Special Leave Petition. Then the Advocate took sometime for filing

the Special Leave Petition.

5. That therefore, the delay of days in filing the

instant Special Leave Petition is neither intentional nor deliberate and

was due to the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

6. That the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and

injury and can not be compensated if the delay in filing the Special

Leave Petition is not condoned.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case

and in the interest of justice, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

(a) Condone the delay of days in filing the accompanying

Special Leave Petition against the impugned judgement and

final order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High

 Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O No.

2217 of 2006;

(b) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR PETITIONER

AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

New Delhi. FILED BY:

Filed on: -

(DR. KAILASH CHAND)

Advocate for the Petitioner.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

F.A.O. NO. 2217 2006

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. JAI PAL SINGH SON OF SH. NARATA RAM

2. SMT. NARATI DEVI W/O SH. JAI PAL SINGH,

BOTH R/O VILLAGE RATTANHERI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT

AMBALA.

…….APPELLANTS

VERSUS

1. AMARJIT SINGH S/O SH. BODH RAJ, R/O H.NO. 4430/3,

KAJIWARA MOHALLA, AMBALA CITY.

2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE, AMBALA CITY,

CINEMA, AMBALA CITY, THROUGH ITS MANAGER, VIDE

POLICY NO. 353502/31/02/00870 VALID FROM 30.4.2002

TO029.4.2003.

……RESPONDENTS

CHANDIGARH (BHAG SINGH) & (SURINDER SINGH)

ADVOCATES

DATED : 18.10.2005. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

F.A.O. No. 2217 of 2006

Date of Decision : 20.10.2008

Jai Pal Singh and another.

……Petitioners through Shri

Bhag Singh, Advocate.

Versus

Amarjit Singh and another.

……Respondent No. 1 through

Mrs. K.B. Jain, Advocate.

Respondent N. 2

through

Shri Pradeep Goyal,

Advocate.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to

See the judgment?
2. T be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Mahesh Grover, J.

This appeal by the claimants is directed against award dated

9.8.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for

short, ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.C.T. Case No. 34 dated 18.4.2003.

 An accident is said to have taken place on 26.7.2002 in which

Jasbir Singh lost this life.

In the claim petition preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased,

it was pluaded that Jasbir Singh along with one Kulwant Singh alias

Jeet son of Arjan Singh was going on a motor cycle bearing

registratin no. HR-01-K-5197 from his Village Rattanheri to Ambala

Cantt. The motorcycle was being driven by the deceased and Kulwant

Singh was sitting on the pillion. When they reached in between the

Tangri Bridge, a truck bearing registration no. HYX-750 being driven

by Amarjit Singh respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner,

came from behind, i.e., from Jagadhari side and while overtaking the

motorcycle, hit against it on the right side due to which both its riders

fell down and suffered grievous injuries. The F.I.R. regarding the

accident was got registered by the Sarpanch of the Village, namely

Gurmail Singh.

The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants

appellants failed to establish the factum of the accident being caused

by respondent no. 1 while driving the truck in question and

dismissed the petition which has resu|ted in the present appeal.

The appellants, in support of their claim petition, had examined

Anil Kumar son of Om Parkash as PW2. He deposed that on

26.7.2002, he was going from the side of Saha towards Ambala Cantt

and when he reached near Tangri bridge, he saw that the truck in

question had caused the accident with a motorcycle on which two

boys were travelling. He gave the time of the accident as 2.15 P.M. He
also testified that the truck driver ran away from the site along the

truck. From his cross-examination, it is evident that despite the

aforesaid fact, he did not chase the truck or bother to inform the

police.

Respondent No. 1, the driver of the truck in question, took up

the stand before the Tribunal that no accident had been caused by

his vehicle and that his truck was taken into possession by the police

on 21.3.2003 after a lapse of about six months. He further pleaded

that on 26.7.2002, he had gone to Karnal with a consignment and

after un|oading half of the goods, it was weyghed at Shiv Dharam

Kanta, Karnal at 1.57 P.M. vide Receipt No. 12996, whereas the

alleged time of accident is 2.15 P.M.

In support of his case, respondent No. 1 examined himself as

RW1 and also produced Exhibits R2 and R3 which are the receipts

issued by the Way-Bridge at Kanral. He alos examined RW5-Jatinder

Pal, the owner of Raju Trading Company, Ambala. He stated that

respondent no. 1 used to transport his goods in the truck in question

for different destinations and on 25.7.2002, the goods were loaded in

that truck for karnal. He further stated that on 26.7.2002 at about

5.00 P.M., the truck in question came empty at Ambala after delivery

of the consignment.

Rakesh Khanna, the proprietor of M/s Bharat Traders, Karnal

was produced as RW6. He deposed that on 26.7.2002, the goods were

brought to his shop from Raju Trading Co., Ambala in the truck in

question being driven by respondent no. 1. He further stated that

truck had reached on that date at 9.00 A.M. And after un|oading, the

truck and its driver were free from them at about 2.00 P.].

Sultan Singh son of Balkar Singh, who was working at Shiv

Dharam Kanta, Karnal, was examined as RW7. He proved the receipts

Exhibits R2 and R3 issued by the Way-Bridge.

Respondent no. 1 also examined Hukam Singh, A.S.I. as RW8.

He stated that investigation of the case F.I.R. No. 174 dated

26.7.2002 remained with him and till he was posted in the Police

Station, Mahesh Nagar, he was unqble to trace out the vehicle which

was involved in the accident in question.

In view of the above evidence, I am of the considered view that

the approach of the Tribunal is not erroneous as there is nothing on

record to suggest that the truck in question was involved in the

accident which is said to have been caused on 26.7.2002. Moreover,

the truck of respondent no. 1 was seized in March, 2003, i.e. after

lapse of six months.

The testimony of one of the alleged eye witnesses to the

accident, who appeared as PW2, is uninspiring as it is strange that

despite the accident having been witnessed, he neither chose to

inform the police nor he made any attempt to identify the offending

truck or its driver.

Similarly, PW-3 Sush}a Rani, who also claimed that she saw the

truck in question hitting the motorcycle, cannot be believed as she

deposed that the police had reached the spot and photographs were
taken in her presence, but surprisi~gly the F.I.R. was registered on

the statement of Sarpanch of the Village. In her cross-examination,

she also stated that on the day of the accident, she did not tell the

police that the accident had taken place in her presence.

Given this set of evidence, it cannot be conclusively established

as to whether the accident had been caused by the truck in question.

In fact, there is nothing to suggest the causing of the accident by the

vehicle of respondent no. 1.

Indeed, the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal are in the nature of an enquiry and conclusive proof may not

be the requirement in the strict sense of the word, but, at the same

time, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that there is a

complete lack of evidence in the instant case to suggest the complicity

of the vehicle in question in the accident. Therefore, the conclusion of

the Tribunal cannot be faulted with and the appeal being devoid of

any merit is dismissed.

Sd/-

Mahesh Grover

October 20, 2008 Judge

//TRUE COPY //
 GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. That the award dated 9.8.2005 pass by the learned Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala, where by the claim petition filed

by the appellants has been dismissed, is wrong, illegal, erroneous,

and against the evidence proved on the file.

2. That the brief facts of the present case are that on dated

26.7.2002 Jasbir Singh (deceased) along with Kulwant Singh was

going on his Motor cycle from his Village to Ambala Cantt. and Jasbir

Singh was driving motorcycle, and when they reached near the

“Tangri” bridge a truck bearing registratin no. HYX-750 which was

being driven by respondent no. 1 rash|y and negligently came from

behind and while overtaking hit the motorcycle in the right side, due

to which the motorcycle fell down and both the riders suffered

injuries. During the way to hospital Jasbir Singh succumbed to his

injuries and Kulwant Singh was admitted in the hospital. The first

information report was lodged by Sh. Gurmel Singh Sarpanch of

Village Rattenheri at Po|ice Station Mahesh Nagar on 26.7.2002. And

the accident was witnessed by Anil Kumar and Sushma Rani also.

3. That the learned Tribunal has wrongly and the illegally

dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants that the produced

the eye witnesses, who witnessed the accident i.e. Anil Kumar,

Sushma Rani, and Gurmel Singh Sarpanch as PW2, PW3 and PW6

respectively. All these witnesses have produced on record that the

accident has been caused by the truck bearing No. HYX 750 at about
2.15 P.M. Similarly, the appellants also produced Hari Chand Clerk,

Municipal Council, Ambala Cantt, regarding the weighment of the

truck bearing No. HYX 450, who has clearly proved Ex. PB, the photo

copy of the receipt of weighment bridge and has said that he was on

duty on weighing bridge from 2.00 P.M. to 10.00 P.]. on 26.7.2002.

This receipt clearly proves that the said truck was in Ambala Cantt

between 2.00 to 10.00 PM. The ld. Tribunal accepted the version of

the respondents that the said truck was not at Ambala and was

Karnal upto 2 P.]. on 26.7.2002 only on the basis of a private Dharam

Kanta and the said receipt are totally forged and fabricated and has

been forged after the said accident. The ld. Tribunal has totally erred

in dismissing the application on the basis of said receipts, when the

appellants have produced on the file all eye witnesses as well as the

receipts issued by the Municipal Counsel, Ambala Cantt regarding

the weighment of said truck.

4. That it is further that the appellants have also produced

Alhmed of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambala Cantt, who has

proved that a case titled as State Versus Amarjeet bearing F.I.R. No.

174 dated 26.7.2002 under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC is pending

against the respondent no. 1. As such when the case is also pending

against the respondent no. 1 against the same accident then it can

not be said that the said truck has been falsely involved.

5. That the ld. Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim

petition of the appellants by relying upon the untrustw rthy evidence

produced by the respondents and has erred in not accepting the

evidence produced by the appellants.

6. That the impugned award clearly based on conjectures

and surmises and as such is liable to be set aside and the claim

petition filed by the appellants is liable to be accepted.

7. That the impugned award suffers from various other

illegalities and infirmities and as such is liable to be set aside.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that appeal may kindly

be accepted and the impugned award dated 9.5.2005 passed by the

ld. M.A.C.T., Ambala, may kindly be set aside and the claim petition

filed by the appellants may kindly be accepted and the compensation

to the tune of Rs. 15 Lacs may kindly be awarded to the appellants.

 ANNEXURE P-1

In the Court of Sh. Ram Chand Gupta, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Ambala

MACT Case No. 34.

Instituted on : 18.4.2003.

Decided on : 9.8.2005.

1. Jai Pal Singh son of Sh. Narata Ram

2. Smt. Narati Devi w/o Sh. Jai Pal Singh,

Both r/o Village Rattanheri, Tehsil and District Ambala.

……. Claimants

Versus

1. Amarjit Singh s/o Sh. Bodh Raj, r/o H. No. 4430/3, Kajiwara

Mohalla, Ambala City.

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Ambala City.

Cinema, Ambala City, through its manager, vide policy No.

353502/31/02/00870 valid from 30.4.2002 to 29.4.2003.

……Respondents

Claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act.

Present : Sh. Jagir Singh, counsel for the claimants.

Sh. S.K. Jain, counsel for respondent no. 1.

Sh. S.S. Rao, counsel for respondent no. 2.

JUDGMENT

Brief facts leading to this petitin for compensation filed

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter called

as the Act) run as under :-

2. On 26.7.2002 Jasbir Singh (deceased) along with Kulwant

Singh alias Jit son of Arjan Singh was going on his motorcycle No.

HR-01K-5197 from his Village Rattanheri towards Ambala Cantt. The

motorcycle was being driven by Jasbir Singh and Kulwant Singh was

pi|lion rider. When they reached in between ‘Tangri’ river bridge near

Ambala Cantt., a truck bearing registratin No. HYX-750 which was

being driven by Amarjit Singh respondent no. 1 in a very rash and

negligent manner, came from behind i.e. from Jagadhri side and

while overtaking the motorcycle being driven by Jasbir Singh hit

against the right side of the motorcycle fell down and suffered

multiple and grievous injuries. The First Information report with the

police was lodged by Gurmel Singh Sarpanch of Village Rattanheri at

Police Station Mahesh Nagar on 26.7.2002. During investigation Anil

Kumar son of Om Parkash had stated before the police that he had

seen the occurrence and that accident was caused by Amarjit Singh

respondent no. 1 and however police in connivance with respondent

no. 1 did not take any action against him. Claimant No. 1 made

complaint to Superintendent of Police, Ambala, and hence after the

period of about six months the truck of respondent no. 1 was taken

into custody by the police and respondent no. 1 surrendered before

the learned Illaqa Magistrate and was re|eased on bail.

 It is further averred that the deceased was 18 years of age

and was agriculturist and also used to do dairy farming and used to

earn a sum of Rs. 15,000/= per month. He was also a brilliant

student. The claimants are parents of the deceased. They were fully

dependent upon his income. Hence a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs has been

claimed as compensation.

3. Amarjit Singh respondent no. 1 appeared and filed written

statement denying the very factum of the accident involving truck No.

HYX-750 being driven by him. Rather plea has been taken that the

truck was taken to Karnal via Shahbad on 26.7.2002 and the truck

was also weighed at Shiv Dharam Kanta, Jundla Gate, Karnal at 9.00

A.M. vide receipt no. 12975 and thereafter the truck was taken to the

factory and after unloading half of the goods, the truck was again

taken to Shiv Dharam Kanta at 13.26 P.]. and at 1.57 the truck was

again weighed vide receipt no. 12996, whereas the alleged time of

accident is 2.20 P.M. in the area of Police Station, Mahesh Nagar.

Hence, there was no possibility of the truck having been present at

the place of accident at the relevant time. Hence, plea has been taken

that he has been falsely involved in this case by the police in

connivance with the claimants just to get compensation. It is also

pleaded that his name has also not been mentioned in the FIR and

even number of truck HYX-750 has also not been mentioned in the

FIR.

4. Respondent no. 2 i.e. Insurance Company, with which the

truck was insured on the date of alleged accident, filed separate

written statement taking the similar plea that the truck was not
involved in the accident and that even in the FIR it was mentioned

that the accident was caused by same unknown vehicle and the case

was also closed by the police of Police Station, Mahesh Nagar as

untraced. False complaint was made by the claimant to

Superintendent of Police, Ambala on 14.1.2003 mentioning that truck

No. HYX-750 was involved in the accident. However, in the

application itself, it was mentioned that he came to know the number

of the truck involved in the accident after 4-5 days of the accident

without explaining as to why the complaint was made after such a

long time i.e. after about six months of the accident. Plea has also

been taken that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and

without any basis.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled for adjudication :-

1. Whether the death of Jasbir Singh took place in an

accident involving truck No. HYX-750? OPP.

2. Whether the claimants are the only legal heirs of the

deceased and entitled to compensation. If so, how much

and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether respondent No. 2 is not liable for paymunt of

compensation, as alleged in the preliminary objections of

the written statement? OPR-2.

4. Relief.

6. The parties adduced evidence in support of their

respective contentions.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the whole record. My findings issue-wise are as under :-

ISSUE NO. 1

8. In order to prove this issue, the claimants examined Anil

Kumar son of Sh. Om Parkash, who appeared as PW-2 and deposed

that on 26.7.2002 he was going from the side of Saha towards

Ambala Cantt. in his car and that he reached near “Tangri” bridge, he

saw that truck No. HYX-750 had caused the accident with a

motorcycle on which two boys were travelling. He further deposed

that the accident had taken place at about 2.15 P.M. and that both

the riders of the motorcycle suffered serious injuries and that

however, he did not know the names of those boys.

However, in the cross-examination, he deposed that he did

not give any information to the police or to any body else. He also

deposed that the truck driver ra~ away with truck just after causing

the accident and that he did not chase the truck. He further deposed

that he is having his transport office at Saha.

9. PW-1 Sh> Vishavjit, Assistant Ahlmad from the court of

Mrs. Seema Singhal, JMIC, Ambala Cannt., deposed that Amarjit

Singh is facing criminal trial for causing this accident. He has proved

copy of report u/s 173 Cr. P.C. as Ex. PA. In the cross-examination,

he deposed that the truck was taken into possession by the police on

21.3.2003. He has also proved copy of FIR as Ex. R-1.

10. Claimants further examined Ms. Sushma Rani d/o Sh.

Dass Ram, who appeared as PW-3 and deposed that she is serving

with a gas agency situated in Industrial Area, Ambala Cantt. and that

on 26.7.2002 she was going from Mahesh Nagar towards Industrial

Area when she saw a truck coming from the front side which hit two

riders of the motorcycle and after hitting the driver of the truck

stopped for one minute and thereafter we~t away and that number of

the truck involved in the accident was HYX-750 and the same was

loaded with card board. She further deposed that the police had

reached the place of accident in her presence and that photographs

were also taken by the police and that her statement was also

recorded by the police on the next day of the accident.

11. PW-4 Hari Chand, a Clerk from Municipal Council,

Ambala Cantt., has proved copy of receipt of weighment bridge

Municipal Council, Ambala Cantt. as Ex. PB. However, in the cross-

examination he deposed that he was not present at the time of

issuance of the said receipt. He also could not say as to whether that

receipt was issued at around 6.00 P.M. He also could not say as to

from where the truck mentioned in the receipt had come.

12. Jai Pal Singh, father of the deceased and one of the

claimants, when appeared as PW-5 deposed in the cross-examination

that Kulwant Singh was traveling with his son Jasbir Singh on the

motorcycle at the time of accident. He also deposed that he had come

to know the names of eye witnesses just after two days of the accident

and that their names are Smt. Sushma and Anil Kumar. However, he

deposed that he had given an application to the police for the first ti}e
after 8-9 months of the accident in which he mentioned the names of

the eye witnesses.

13. PW-6 is Gurmel Singh son of Gurcharan Singh who

deposed that on 26.7.2002 he was going towards Jagadhri from

Ambala Cantt. and when he reached near “Tangri” river bridge, there

was traffic jam and that he saw that Kulwant Singh and Jasbir Singh

were lying on the road and that he had taken them to Civil Hospital,

Ambala Cantt. by a three-wheeler and that however, Jasbir Singh had

succumbed to the injuries on the way. He also deposed that he got

Kulwant Singh admitted in the hospital. He has proved copy of FIR

Ex. R-1. In the cross-examination he clarified that the FIR was read

over to0him by the police before he signed the same.

14. On the other hand, Amarjit Singh respondent no.1

appeared as RW-1 and deposed that on 26.7.2002 he had taken his

truck from Ambala to Karnal at about 6.00 A.M. and that he had

reached Karnal at 9.00 A.M. He further deposed that the truck was

loaded with card board and pipes made of card board and that he had

to deliver the goods at Bharat Traders, Meeran Ghati Chowk, Karnal.

He further deposed that at about 9.09 A.M. he got his truck weighed

at a computerized Dharam Kanta named Shiv Dharam Kanta at

Jundka Gate, Karnal and he was issued a receipt Ex. R-2 after

weighment. He further deposed that he unloaded the cardboard at

about 1.26 P.M. and that he had again taken the truck at Dharam

Kanta and the remaining goods were again weighed for which receipt

Ex. R-3 was issued. He further deposed that he unloaded the

remaining goods and again got the empty truck weighed at 1.57 P.M.
and the said fact is also mentioned in receipt Ex.R-3. He further

deposed that he left Karnal at about 2.30 P.M. and reached Ambala at

about 5.00 or 6.00 P.M. He also clarified that he had gone to Karnal

via Shagbad and returned by the same route. He further deposed that

he was also called by the police in the presence of the claimant and

he satisfied the police that his truck was not involved in the accident.

He further deposed that he has also given complaints to the higher

authorities for his alleged false involvement in this case. He has also

produced said applications which are dated 22.2.2003 and 8.3.2003

as Mark-X and Mark-Y.

However, in the cross-examination he admitted that police

filed challan regarding this accident against him in the court.

15. RW-2 is Sh. D.S. Chadha, A.D.I.G. Vigilance (Retd.) who

was appointed as Investigator by the Insurance Company to

investigate this case. He has proved his investigation report as Ex. R-

4. He deposed that Mark-1 to Mark-14 are part of his report.

16. RW-3 is Pawan Kumar, Addl. Ahlmad of the Court of Mrs.

Seema Singhal, JMIC, Ambala Cantt., who has proved copy of

application given by Jai Pal as Ex. R-5. He has also proved copy of

statement of Kulwant Singh recorded u/s 161 Cr. P.C. as Ex. R-6 and

copy of statement of Anil Gupta as Ex. R-7. He has also proved copy

of statement of Gurmel Singh as Ex. R-8. He further deposed that no

evidence has been recorded in this case so far and the case is fixed

for evidence of the prosecution for 23.12.2004.

17. RW-4 is Hari Chand from Municipal Council, Ambala

Cantt., who proved statement Ex. R-9 as having been given by him.

18. RW-5 is Jatinder Pal, owner of Raju Trading Company,

Shop No. 3880, Kachha Bazar, Ambala Cantt., who deposed that

Amarjit Singh is known to him who is owner of truck No. HYX-750.

He further deposed that he used to hire his truck for transporting his

goods to different places and that on 25.7.2002 the truck was loaded

with goods by them and that the truck was to0go to Karnal and that

the truck had come to his shop at about 4.00 or 5.00 P.M. on

26.7.2002 and that the same was empty. He also deposed that he had

given statement before the Investigator of the Insurance Company,

which is Ex. R-10. He has also proved bills issued by him as Ex. R-11

and Ex. R-12.

19. RW-6 is Rakesh Khanna, Proprietor M/s Bharat Traders,

Meeran Ghati Chowk, Karnal, who deposed that on 26.7.2002 the

goods were brought to his shop from Ambala Cantt. from Raju

Trading Company in truck No. HYX-750 which was being driven by

Amarjit Singh and that the truck had reached his shop at about 9.00

AM and that the driver was free at about 2.00 P.M. He also deposed

that he had also given statement before investigator of the Insurance

Company which is Ex. R-13. He has also proved copy of bills Ex.R-11

and Ex. R-13. He has also deposed that the weighment slip Ex. R-2 to

Ex. R-3 were taken by respondent.

20. RW-8 is Sultan Singh who used to work at Shiv Dharam

Kant, Jundla Gate, Karnal. He has proved weighment slips Ex. R-2
and Ex. R-3. He has also deposed that he had given statement before

the Official of Insurance Company which is Ex. R-14.

21. RW-8 is Hukam Singh ASI, Police Station, Pehowa, who

deposed that he remained Investing Officer of this case upto

26.9.2002 and that during the period the case remained with him,

the driver and vehicle involved in the accident could not be traced. He

further deposed that he correctly recorded the statements of Kulwant

Singh, Jaipal Singh, Gurmel Singh Sarpanch, HC Ashok Kumar,

Rajinder Kumar and Suraj Bhan. He has proved copy of statements of

Kulwant Singh as Ex. R-15, copy of statement of Jai Pal Singh as Ex.

R-16, copy of statement of Rajinder Kumar Ex. R.17, copy of

statement of Baljinder Singh Ex. R-18 and copy of statement of Suraj

Bhan Ex. R-19. He further deposed that final report u/s 173 Cr. P.C.

was prepared by Puran Chand Sub Inspector, copy of which is

Ex. R-20.

In the cross-examination, he deposed that on the

statement of Jai Pal Singh that Smt. Sushma had been the accident,

he had called Smt. Sushma and that however, she told that she had

not seen the accident.

22. As is clear from the aforementioned evidence adduced by

both the parties on the point, First Information Report regarding the

accident, copy of which is Ex. PA, was lodged by Sh. Gurmel Singh,

Sarpanch of the same Village to which the deceased belonged. He had

seen both the riders of the motorcycle lying injured and the

motorcycle was lying nearby. He did not know as to how they met
with the accident. Hence, in the report Ex. PA, the number of any

vehicle and the name of the driver, who caused the accident, was not

mentioned Gurmel Singh PW-6 deposed that he had removed the

injured to the hospital and that on of the injured Jasbir Singh died on

way to the Hospital. The other rider of the motorcycle and the injured

namely Kulwant Singh has not been examined by the claimants. One

of the claimants, Jai Pal Singh when appeared as PW-5 si}ply deposed

that the police did not record statement of Kulwant Singh in his

presence. Gurmel Singh PW-6 has tried to explain that Kulwant

Singh is bed ridden and lost his memory. However, no reliance can be

placed upon his testimony in this regard as no medical evidence has

been produced. No family member of Kulwant Singh has appeared to

depose regarding this fact. Even Jai Pal Singh has no where deposed

that Kulwant Singh is not in a position to depose. He was the best

witness to depose regarding the manner in which the accident

occurred.

23. On the other hand, the respondents have placed on record

copy of statement recorded by the Investigating Officer on 27.7.2002

during investigation of the criminal case, which is Ex. R-15 in which

he had stated that he and Jasbir Singh were under the influence of

liquor and that he did nor remember as to how Jasbir Singh caused

the accident.

24. Further according to Jai Pal Singh, one the claimants, he

had come to know the names of eye witnesses of the accident just

after tw days that their names are Smt. Sushma and Anil Kumar.

However, no explanation has come on record as to why report with

the police was not lodged regarding involvement of truck No. HYX-750

just after two day of the accident. PW-2 Anil Kumar and PW-3 is

having his transport office at Saha. He was known to the claimants. It

is not believable that after seeing such serious accident having taken

place, he would leave the place of accident and allow the injured to

remain in critical condition at the place of accident. It is also not

believable that he would remember the occurrence even after 7-8

months of the accident.

25. PW-3 Smt. Sushma Rani deposed that the police had

reached the place of accident in her presence and that photographs

were also taken by the police in her presence and that police recorded

her statement on the next day of the accident. However, had this

been the fact, the police would have registered the FIR against the

driver of truck No. HYX-750. In the cross-examination, she deposed

that on the day of accident, she did not tell the police that the

accident had taken place in her presence. However, when she had

allegedly seen the accident and when the police had reached the place

of accident in her presence, it is not explainable as to why she did not

tell the police that the accident had taken place in her presence. On

the other hand, the Police Officer, who initially investigated this case,

deposed that he had inquired from Sushma Rani and that however,

she stated before him that she had not seen the accident. Even in the

petition the claimants have not mentioned the name of Sushma Rani

as one of the eye witnesses, who had seen the accident. In the claim

petition only name of Anil Kumar has been mentioned as and eye

witness.
26. Respondents have also produced sufficient oral and

documentary evidence, as discussed above, to show that on the day

of occurrence, truck No. HYX-750 had left Ambala Cantt. for Karnal

and that the truck remained at Karnal upto 2.00 P.M. and reached

Ambala at about 4.00 or 5.00 P.M. The accident had allegedly taken

place at about 2.00 P.]. The place of accident is on Ambala-Jagadhri

road in between bridge of river ‘Tangri’. The truck had gone from

Ambala Cantt. to Karnal via G.T. Road and the tuck could not

possibly be at the place of accident at the relevant time. It seems that

either the riders of the motorcycle fell of their own as the driver of the

motorcycle was under the influence of liquor or they were hit by some

unknown vehicle and however, lateron after few months of the

accident, application was given by the claimants involving truck No.

HYX-750 whych was insured with respondent No. 2 Insurance

Company, just to0claim compensation. The police had also field

untraced report initially and however, on subsequent application of

the claimant mentioning truck no. HYX-750 having been involved in

the accident, the case was repened as per orders of Superi~tendent

of Police, Ambala, and challan was filed against the diver of the said

truck.

27. It may also be mentioned here that even in the

application Ex. PF, which was allegedly given by Jai Pal Singh

claimant to Superintendent of Police for reopening of the case, the

names of persons, who had allegedly seen the accident, have not been

mentioned. Only number of the vehicle, allegedly involved in the

accident, has been mentioned as HYX-750. Hence, this fact also goes
to show that the witnesses were lateron procured by the claimants

just to claim compensation. Hence, no reliance can be placed upon

the testimony of Anil Kumar PW-2 ad Sushma Rani PW-3. Rather

deposition of Amarjit Singh respondent no. 1 is believable that he did

not cause any accident with truck No. HYX-750 and that he had gone

from Ambala to Karnal on that day with the truck and remained at

Karnal throughout the day.

28. In view of my above discussin, I am of the view that the

claimants have failed to prove that the accident was caused due to

rash and negligent driving of truck No. HYX-750 by Amarjit Singh

respondent no. 1 causing injuries to Jasbir Singh resulting into his

death. This issue stands accordingly decided against the claimants

and in favour of the respondents.

ISSUES NO. 2 AND 3:

29. In view of my finding on issue No. 1, these issues have

become redundant and need no finding.

RELIEF:

30. As a sequel to my finding on issue No. 1, the present claim

petition is, hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Announced in open Court : Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Dated : 9.8.2005. Ambala.

 MEMO OF COSTS

Claimants Respondents

1. Stamp for petitin 10.00

2. Stamp for power 2.00 2.00

3. Pleader’s fee Not assessed Not assessed

4. Sub. for witnesses 260.00 550.00

5. Process fee 16.00 39.00

6. Misc. 5.00 50.00

___________________________________

Total 293.00 641.00

___________________________________

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Ambala.

//TRUE COPY //
xxxxxxxxxxxx

(i) That the Petitioner has this day filed the accompanying

Special Leave Petition before this Hon'ble Court Against the

impugned judgment and final order dated 20.10.2008

passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in F.A.O No. 2217 of 2006.

(ii) That the facts and circumstances have been set out in the

aforesaid Special Leave Petition. The Petitioner craves leave

of this Hon'ble Court to refer to and rely upon the contents of

the same for the sake of present grounds.

(iii) That the petitioner has a good prima facie case and the

balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) No prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the

respondent(s) herein if the interim relief as prayed for are

granted and the petitioner (s) will suffer grave harm and

irreparable hardship if the interim relief are not granted.

(v) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be

just and proper that the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by

the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in F.A.O No. 2217 of 2006 may kindly be stayed.

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased

to:

(a) Grant ad-interim ex-parte stay of operation of the judgment

and order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O No.

2217 of 2006; and

(b) Pass any other order and further order or orders as this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.