VEENA RANI Vs. DHARAMVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeal the appellants seek to challenge the impugned Award dated 14.09.1995 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants was dismissed by the Tribunal. Brief summary of the facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) Along with the present appeal the appellants have also moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC so as to prove on record the income of the deceased as well to produce the police witness.

(3.) Ms. Aruna Mehta, counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has over looked the copy of the challan filed on record in which it was stated that on 19.1.1998 the legal heirs of the deceased came to the police station and had identified the photograph of the deceased as well as his clothes. The contention of the counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has returned a wrong finding by holding that the body of the deceased was not identified and the appellants failed to establish their relationship with the said unidentified body. Counsel for the appellants has also invited my attention to the list of witnesses filed in the criminal Court where the name of the appellant No. 1 appears at sr. No. 7. The contention of the counsel for the appellants that the name of appellant No.1 appeared in the Police challan due to the fact that she had identified the dead body and had received the clothes. Counsel for the appellants thus contends that the appellants have been denied compensation just on the perverse finding given by the Tribunal, totally disbelieving the case set up by the appellants. Ms. Geeta Mehrotra, counsel for the respondent, however, refutes the submission made by the counsel for the appellants. She submits that the appellants failed to prove and establish on record their relationship with the deceased. Even the name of the eye witness as produced by the appellants did not appear in the chargesheet filed.