IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.592 of 1991(O&M) Date of decision:01.02.2011 Partap Singh and another ....Appellants versus Smt. Amna and others. ....Respondents II. FAO No.593 of 1991(O&M) Partap Singh and another ....Appellants versus Smt. Pushpa Devi and others. ....Respondents III. FAO No.594 of 1991(O&M) Partap Singh and another ....Appellants versus Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others. ....Respondents IV. FAO No.595 of 1991(O&M) Partap Singh and another ....Appellants versus Dharampal and others. ....Respondents V. FAO No.596 of 1991(O&M) Partap Singh and another ....Appellants versus Dhanraj and others. ....Respondents FAO No.592 of 1991(O&M) - 2 - VI. FAO No.597 of 1991(O&M) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Ramesh Chand Gupta and others. ....Respondents VII. FAO No.598 of 1991(O&M) Partap Singh and another ....Appellants versus Das Ram alias Ram Dass and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Rajat Khanna, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. J.S.Yadav, Advocate, for the respondents in FAO No.596 of 1991. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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 ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. All the appeals are filed by the driver of the Transport Corporation and the Insurance Company. The joint appeals by the driver and the Insurance Company are not maintainable in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chinnama George and others Versus N.K.Raju and another-2000(4) SCC 130. There had been no attempt of any of the appellants to seek for transposition of the Insurance Company FAO No.592 of 1991 (O&M) - 3 - as a respondent. The appeals as framed are themselves not maintainable in terms of the law referred to above and they deserve in limine dismissal. 2. Even if it were to be taken that such an appeal could be filed and a reappraisal on the issue of negligence could be made, it has to be seen that the accident was the result of collision between the Haryana Roadways Transport and the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The first appellant was the driver of the Haryana Roadways. While dealing with the issue of negligence, the Tribunal considered the fact that the Haryana Roadways was heavily laden with 150 passengers, with many passengers sitting on the roof of the bus also. The Tribunal considered the evidence of three witnesses PW4-Ghansham, PW6- Dhanraj and PW12-Ramesh Chand, who deposed that the accident had been caused due to the negligence of a Haryana Roadways bus driver. PW12 had gone on record to state that he had even cautioned the driver to slow down, but the driver did not pay any heed. The Tribunal found that the Rajasthan Roadways had just been taken a road turning and hence, it could not have come at a high speed. Even the police had registered a case only against the driver of the Haryana Roadways. Of course, the driver of the Haryana Roadways examined himself to give a different version that he was driving carefully and that the driver of the Rajasthan Roadways had come to the wrong direction and dashed against the vehicle. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants would also point out that some of the witnesses, who were passengers, had stated that it was FAO No.592 of 1991 (O&M) - 4 - only the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation which was responsible for the accident and that in any event witnesses were not unequivocal in the reference to the negligence only against the driver of Haryana Roadways. It is also urged on behalf of the appellants that the FIR does not really make a reference to any negligent driving. 4. It is immaterial that the FIR does not make any reference to a negligent driving of the driver, for, it cannot be any more than a record of fact of what a complainant perceived. It shall be ultimately the duty of the Tribunal to determine the negligence of the respective drivers. The Tribunal had good enough reasons referred to above in para 2 to find that the driver of the Haryana Roadways alone had been negligent in his driving and I find no reason to take a different view. 5. Even if the appeals were to be considered on merits, nothing favourable survives for consideration for the appellants. The awards are maintained and the joint appeals filed, are dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 01.02.2011 sanjeev