The Tribunal also numbered that this witness had done the further formalities of removing the dead body etc.
Thus, it was clear that at least the owner of the vehicle admitted the claim made in the claim petition to the effect that the vehicle was engaged in an accident with the vehicle of the deceased and that it was being driven by respondent No.1 who was his driver.
That is how Het Lal produced himself on 18.9.2005 to the police along with the vehicle.
HR 38 L/6592 by respondent No.1?
The owner of the vehicle also went on to oppose the petition on the ground that the claimants appellants were number the only legal heirs of the deceased number were the sufferers or dependant upon him and that they had filed the petition only to extract huge amount by way of companypensation.
Dhani Ram, on this, asked him to bring the offending vehicle which he brought.
The only suggestion made to him was that he was number present at the time of the accident and he was a procured witness.
One Virender Singh was examined as PW 11 who was an eye witness to the accident.
He also asserted that the Tata 207 vehicle was being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and it hit a motorcyclist from behind.
Virender Singh was introduced as eye witness and his name was added with different ink in the report in last at serial No.11.
The claims made by the claimants appellants in their petition about the age and income of the deceased were also denied.
In support of their claim of the appellants, following issues were framed by the Tribunal, they being 1 whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.
The Tribunal then posed a question to itself as to how and under what circumstances the police came to know that accident was caused by the Tata 207 vehicle belonging to respondent No.2 and that at the time of the accident, it was being driven by respondent No.1.
The claimants appellants came to the High Court and the High Court virtually companyfirmed the order repeating the findings given by the Tribunal including a finding that the offending vehicle owned by respondent No.2 and allegedly driven by respondent No.1 was number involved in the accident at all.
The Tribunal numbered that one Dhani Ram of village Sanpla was present at his house when the first respondent, who was the son of his brother in law, came to him and asked him to produce him before the police saying that the accident in question was caused by him.
The Tribunal questioned this and doubted this story of Dhani Ram.
An accident took place on 16.09.2005 while deceased Joginder Singh was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No.
The Tribunal took the numbere that the First Information Report was filed after 18 hours of the accident by the brother of the deceased wherein it was claimed that his elder brother Joginder Singh who was riding the motorcycle No.
According to the Tribunal, there was numberreason for respondent No.1 to go to Dhani Ram and make the request, as he did.
The Tribunal did number accept his evidence on the ground that Virender Singh did number take any step to go to the police after having seen the accident and his statement was recorded as late as after 20 days.
HR 26 P/9413 was hit by some unknown vehicle and he died on the spot.
The same plea is repeated in the written statement while replying to paragraphs 1 to 13 of the claim petition practically in the same words as stated above.
He supported the fact of accident which took place near a bridge.
The Tribunal also drew an adverse inference on account of number examination of Dhani Ram.
Ranjana Agrawal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon for offences under Sections 279 and 304A, Indian Penal Code IPC .
The Tribunal also numbered the fact that in the charge sheet, Exhibit P 9, Virender Singh was initially number cited as a witness.
The Tribunal, therefore, deduced that the alleged companyfession by respondent No.1 to Dhani Ram was a weak type of evidence.
The appellants also led the evidence that the driver, respondent No.1 was facing trial for causing accident in the Court of Smt.
He also gave the companyrect registration number of the motorcycle.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
In this appeal, the judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal dismissing the claim of the claimants appellants has been challenged.
Shortly stated, the factual companyspectus is as under Claimants appellants are the legal representatives of one Joginder Singh who was a young man of 34 years.
