IQBAL KAUR Vs. DAYAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation arising on account of death of one Rajinder Singh Sohi. The accident was said to have taken place at the time when he was traveling alongwith one Lachhman Singh Rai in jeep PIR 7028. Both of them were advocates. The accident and death of Rajinder Singh Sohi had arisen on account of a collision of the jeep with the tractor PB-12-4972. It was alleged that on 12.1.1991, at about 6.30 p.m. near village Sarhana, Police Station Morinda when the tractor owned by Joginder Singh and driven by Dayal Singh dashed against the jeep an3 both the persons travelling in the jeep were injured when it turned turtle. Rajinder Singh has reported to have died on the spot and Lachhman Singh Rai had suffered injuries and was taken to the hospital. The further averment was that the body of the deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital at Morinda and later referred to Civil Hospital, Ropar where the post-mortem was conducted.

(2.) The accident was got reported by the father-in-law of the deceased who had reached the spot after the incident and it was he who had lifted the corpse in a tempo to the Civil Hospital at Morinda and later taken the body to the hospital at Ropar for post mortem. One Labh Singh who was a close relative of the deceased had given a complaint to the police the following day on the basis of which DDR No.3 was recorded on 13.1.1991 at 8.15 a,m. There was no disclosure of the registration number of the tractor or the name of the driver. The FIR, however, had been registered rather late on 11.2.1991, on a complaint from Lachhman Singh and at that time a reference had been made to the involvement of the tractor with particulars of registration number and name of the driver. The investigation based on the complaint lodged as FIR did not result in tracing the accused or the vehicle involved in the accident and the police closed the case with an investigation report that the particular vehicle mentioned in FIR was not involved and the person alleged as driver was innocent.

(3.) The Tribunal while examining the case found that the DDR that was recorded immediately after the accident did not spell-out the identity of the vehicle and the further the fact that FIR came to be lodged only nearly a month after the accident as going to prove that claimants were fabricating a case of involvement through an obliging owner of tractor and therefore, accepted the contention of the insurance company that accident involving the insured's vehicle had not been established and proceeded to dismiss the petition.