SATYA DEVI Vs. JUGAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants, challenging the impugned Award dated 20.1.1998, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (in short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by them was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants on the ground that the name of the driver and number of the offending vehicle do not find mention in the DDR. It is further submitted that the photocopy of the passport, which was not duly proved has been relied upon and Sukhdev Singh, who appeared as PW2, has wrongly been stated as interested witness.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company submits that neither any driver was named, nor number of the vehicle was mentioned in the DDR. No FIR was registered. There is no complaint before the authority that version given by PW2 Sukhdev Singh was not recorded properly. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the appellants.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.