Param j it Singt anl ot hers v. Limited respondent No the Oriental Insurance Company

First I nform at ionReport copy Exh ibit Pe2 t he regist rat ion num ber of t he t ract or which allegedly caused t he accident 39 1991 has not been m ent ioned However st rangelyenough respondent s Nos 1 2 in t heir writ t en st at em ent adm it t ed t he accident Besides Charanj eetSingh 1 r 0 C I C5 I Z 2 I 08 7 Z 0 respondent N02 while deposing in Court as RVVl st at ed t hat . Rashm i he was 2012.09.03 13: 45 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh driving his t ruck bearing 1egist rat ion NoHNE Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 55 r 40 FOaNoe3150f 1996 m r 0 0 C5 I Z r r 08 7 Z Ll 9341 which was involved in t he accident m eaning t he offending t ract or belongedt o hir However t his st at em ent of Charanj eetSingh WlI I S falsified from a bare perusal of t he I nsurance Poiicy Exhibit R2J in which respondent N61 Param j it Singh I S m ent ioned as owner t he t ruck The pet it ionhas been filed aft er m ore t han t wo years of t he accident t ook place on 31991 Gurj inderKaur while deposing in Court as PW1 st at ed t hat t he nam es oft he driver and owner of t he t ruck were m ent ioned t o her about one m ont h prior t o t he filingof t he claim pet it ion by one Balwinder Singhof Pehowa r The said Balwinder Singh was exam ined in support of t he ct aim pet it ion The evidence of Gurj inderKaur PWll is not hing but hearsayWhich iS not accept ablein I aw Anot her fact which deserves t o be t aken not e of is t hat JaspalSingh PW2 who is aut hor of t he First I nform at ionReport st at ed t herein First I nform at ion Report l t hat while he driving his cycle spot t ed t he t ract or being driven wit h t he help of a t orch I ight because t he head I ightof t he t ract or was not in workingorder He furt her m ent t oned in t he First I nform at ion Report t hat t he noise of collision when he was t wo furlongs away from t he t ract ort rolley The t im e of accident I S 8O P I t is not believabie t hat Jaspal Singh wou I d be able t o wit ness t he occurrence in t he t orch I ight of t he t ract or driver t hat t oo frorn a dist ance of about t wo furlongs I n t hese circum st ances t he deposit ion of JaspalSingh6PW 2I . Rashm i 2012.09.03 13: 45 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh in Court t hat he had ident ified t he driver of Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 56 1 r m 7 FeAeO Noe 315 of 1996 lJ 5 t he t ract or being Charanj eetSingh I S not accept able Singh PW21 could not see t he face of t he Driver of t he t ract or t he darkness especiallywhen t he head I ightof t he t ract or was in workingorder I n view of t he t here is no escape from t he conclusion t hat t he claim ant s have failed t o prove t hat t he accident in quest ion had been caused due t o t he rash and negligentdriving of t ract or NoHNE9340 eit her by respondent No respondent No 2 Under t he circum st ances it has right ly been held by t he I earned Tribunal t hat t he claim pet it ionhas fact been filed a result of collusion bet ween t he claim ant s on t he one hand and respondent sNos 1 and 2 on t he ot her hand on t heir respondent sNos l and 2sl assum pt iont hat t he t ract or ng insured t he t iabiI it y would fall t he I nsurance Com pany respondent No3l beingwit hout any m erit t his appealis herebydism issed I vaYIi1 1 2010 1 PALI OUDGE 1 0 C I C5 Z 0 I 08 m m Z t 1 3 CA r . Rashm i 2012.09.03 13: 45 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document