IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA F.A.O. No. 367 of 2004 Decided on :August 11, 2008. H.R.T.C. …..Appellant. VERSUS M/s Kuldeep Chand & Sons through its partner Shri Atul Mittals & ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate, For the Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Harish Bahl, Advocate. For Respondent No. 6: Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate. R.B. Misra, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.9.2002 passed by Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P. (in short called “Learned Tribunal”) passed in Claim Petition No. 89/1998 whereby in respect of claim for compensation an amount of Rs. 70,000/- were directed to be paid by the respondent No. 7 to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 petition till the date of deposit along with costs and laywer’s fee assessed at Rs. 1100/-. 2. It has also been apprised to this Court that the said amount had already been deposited. Therefore, nothing has to be deposited on the part of respondent No. 7. 3. It appears that petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was preferred before Tribunal in reference to the incident/accident which took place on 2.3.1997 where Bus No. HP-34-3026 owned by Himachal Road Transport Corporation ( in short called “H.R.T.C.) being driven by its driver Kamal Singh while going from Shimla to Mandi had came across an accident with another petrol Tanker bearing No. HP-33-2364 owned by respondents No. 1 to 5 which was said to be driven rash and negligently by the driver respondent No. 6 and which hit while coming from opposite side to the bus of the appellant, whereby passengers sitting in the bus have sustained multiple injuries and the bus was badly damaged and in the said accident the bus driver Kamal Singh had succumed to the injuries on way to the Civil Hospital Mandi. 4. The claim of Rs. 70,000/- for repair of bus and claim of Rs. 2,09,920/- as compensation paid to the legal 3 representatives of deceased driver and amount of Rs. 4,77,000/- for 159 days for which the bus was not road-worthy was claimed. Overall a claim of Rs. 10,86,220/- plus Rs. 70,000/- spent for the repair for the repair of bus was claimed. 5. On the basis of material on record, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the damage has been caused to the bus vehicle bearing registration No. HP-34-302, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2? OPP 2. Whether the Ist respondent is not the owner of the truck vehicle bearing registration No. HP-33-2364? If so, its effect? OPR-1 3. Whether the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured as alleged ? OPR-3 4. To what amount the claimant is entitled to get as compensation for the loss of his property, namely the bus vehicle? OPP 5. Relief. 6. Learned prosecution examined PW1 Dyal Singh, conductor, who supported the prosecution version by saying that the tanker had gone to the wrong side while overtaking the bus. Taking into consideration the 4 material of FIR and the testimony of respondent No. 1 who is owner of the tanker, Learned Tribunal has arrived at a finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 6, the driver of tanker. Accordingly, issue No. 1 was decided in affirmative. 7. Since issue No. 2 was not pressed for, therefore, the Tribunal has adjudicated Issue No. 3 and has answered in negative. 8. In respect of issue No. 4, Shri Jeet Ram Sharma PW2, the Regional Manger, H.R.T.C. was examined. According to him, Rs. 70,000/- was spent for repair of the bus. However, it was found that bill in respect of the expenditure to repair the bus was not elaborated in view of the testimony of PW3 Shri P.N. Sharma, Manger Technical H.R.T.C. who supported the prosecution version in respect of the expenditure of Rs. 68,842/- spent on the repair of the bus. Learned Tribunal has right arrived at a finding that Rs. 70,000/- as an expenditure incurred on the repair of bus was un- rebutted. Therefore, the said amount was directed to be paid by the Insurance Company. 9. In respect of claim of recovery of Rs. 2,09,920/- paid to the LRs of deceased driver, since 5 no issue was framed and no legal representative have come forward to claim for compensation, therefore, no finding was required to given by Learned Tribunal. 10. It appears that in respect of claim of Rs. 2,09,920/- no issue was framed and this aspect was not substantiated by Learned Tribunal for lack of material presented for on behalf of H.R.T.C. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and perusal of evidence, material on record and keeping in view the testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as the witnesses adduced on behalf of respondents, Learned Tribunal has rightly finding in respect of all the issues and has directed to pay Rs. 70,000/- by the respondent No. 7-Insurance Company to the appellant H.R.T.C. along with interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit along with cots and laywer’s fee assessed at Rs. 1100/-. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents which were placed before Learned Tribunal. On the basis of material on record and keeping in view the prosecution witnesses and the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2, Learned Tribunal has rightly arrived the finding and has rightly directed for payment of Rs. 70,000/- towards the repair of the 6 damaged bus in the accident in question. I do not find any merit in the appeal, whereby any enhancement of amount on the basis of material could be granted. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. August 11, 2008 (vs) ( R.B. Misra ), J.