IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No.854 of 1991 Date of Decision: 11.12.2008 Smt.Bhago and another. ....... Appellants through Shri M.B.Singh, Advocate. Versus Shri Sukhbir Singh and another. ....... Respondents through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This appeal is directed against award dated 4.4.1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No. 22 of 8.6.1989. Ajit Singh, son of the appellants, died in a road accident on 28.2.1989. At that time, he was returning in a rickshaw along with his brother from Panchkula and proceeding towards Mani Majra. It was stated in the claim petition that Ram Ashra, the rickshaw puller asked Ajit Singh to drive the rickshaw, who agreed and whe nhe was in the process and had just started the rickshaw, a military truck came from behind and hit the rickshaw Ajit Singh and others sustained injuries. Subsequently, Ajit Singh succumbed to his injuries. It was also stated that the military truck could stop only after hitting the divider in the middle of the road. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal F.A.O. No.854 of 1991 -2- .... came to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to establish the negligence of the driver of the military truck in causing the accident and that the deceased was negligent as he was inexperienced and took a sudden turn towards right side and in the process, brought the rickshaw in the way of the truck. However, a sum of Rs.15000/- was awarded the claimants under `no fault liability'. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence is erroneous. I have thoughtfully considered the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. In my opinion, the impugned award does not warrant any interference. There is no evidence to suggest that the truck driver was negligent in causing the accident. It is a case where the rickshaw came suddenly in front of the truck and to avoid the accident, the driver of the truck turned it towards the extreme right side and in the process, hit the rickshaw. There is also no evidence to suggest that there was a turning towards the right side which prompted the rickshaw puller to take this rickshaw towards the right side. Had there been any evidence of the road turning towards right side, then it was expected of the truck driver to slow down, but it being a straight road, it was the fault of the rickshaw puller, who came in front of the truck crossing its path which made the accident totally unavoidable. On the basis of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. December 11,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge