FAO No.620 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.620 of 1998 Date of Decision.24.12.2010 Jai Parkash son of Shri Ram Kishan, resident of village Khubru, Tehsil Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat (Driver No.133 in Haryana Roadways Gohana Sub Depot, Distt. Sonepat) ......Appellant Versus Haryana Roadways, Rohtak Depot, through its General Manager (owner of offending bus No.HR-46-0161) and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. The appeal is against the award of dismissal of claim made by the driver of a bus belonging to Haryana Roadways bearing registration No.HNS-2831, which was involved in a collision with the another bus belonging to the Haryana Roadways bearing registration No.HR-46-0161. There were several claims emanating from the passengers of the bus and the claimant was the driver of the bus, which was involved in the accident. While disposing of all the cases, the Tribunal found that the driver of the bus No.HNS-2831, who is now appellant before this Court, was responsible for the accident and had granted a compensation for FAO No.620 of 1998 -2- the claimants who were the passengers in the bus. 2. Consistent with the finding, the Tribunal also found that the driver of the offending bus being negligent could not have a valid cause of action for claim against his own act. He was a tort feasor himself and therefore, there was no scope for claiming compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Perhaps, the appropriate claim could have been only against his own owner and the insurance company for the vehicle, which he was driving on the basis that the injury was in the course of and out of employment under the Workmen's Compensation Act. For the claimant would have a different forum for adjudication and since the insurer of the bus is not a party, I will not examine the possibility of successful claim against his employer and the insurer. Reserving to him such liberty, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. If such a claim is made before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, the Commissioner shall take into account the prosecution of the case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and before this Court. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 24, 2010 Pankaj*