Effect of -- Immediately after the accident, on the same day, brother of the deceased has lodged DDR -- In the said DDR, it has been mentioned that the accident has taken place by chance when the deceased was crossing the road and nobody is at fault for this accident -- On the basis of this DDR, the inquest proceedings were carried out – Entire case of the appellants-claimants is based on the statement of PW-2 / “M” – No material on record to show that the claimants have moved any application to the police to take up the investigation of the case and to join “M” in the investigation -- PW-2/ “M” was familiar to the family members of the deceased and he also attended his 'Bhog' ceremony -- He had ample opportunity to disclose negligence of driver but he never came forward with any such version prior to make the statement in the Court – In these circumstances the presence of PW-2 / “M” at the time of occurrence is not established – Claimant failed to prove rash and negligence of Bus driver for causing accident – Claim petition rightly dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2016

Driver and owner of the offending tractor completely denied the factum of accident -- Contrary to their stand taken in the written reply, when driver of the offending vehicle stepped into the witness box, on being cross-examined by the claimant, he outrightly admitted that the motorcycle of the claimant had struck into his tractor -- It was crystal clear from the account of accident given by him that he had changed his version only with an intention to favour the claimant -- Medical document also do not indicate that the claimant had suffered injuries during a motor accident -- Claimant explained no reason for not lodging a report with any authority with regard to the accident -- Claimant utterly failed to prove the occurrence of accident and also that he suffered the injuries during a motor accident – Claim rightly dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016