FAO No.5329 of 2008 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5329 of 2008 Date of decision: December 24, 2008. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Ltd. ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Gurinder Sigh Gill, Advocate for the appellant. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This appeal has been preferred by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and its Depot Manager at Bhatinda against the award dated 21.10.2008 passed by the MACT, Amritsar, whereby compensation of Rs.3,34,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of institution of the claim petition has been awarded to respondents No.1 to 5 – claimants who are the widow, three minor children and mother of deceased Bakhshish Singh. As per the claimants' case, on 31.10.2006, Bakhshish Singh FAO No.5329 of 2008 - 2 - along with his wife Gurmeet Kaur (respondent No.1) went to village Munda Pind on 31.10.2006 where his in-laws were residing. While coming back on the next day, i.e., 1.11.2006 when they reached near village Chotala on the main road at about 5.30 p.m., the bus bearing registration No.PB-11-U-6754 owned by the appellant – Corporation struck against the motorcycle of the deceased bearing registration No.PB-46-C-9803 as a result of which he fell down on the road and died at the spot. According to the respondent- claimants, the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the above stated bus by Tehal Singh (respondent No.6). The matter was reported to the police and FIR No.169 dated 1.11.2006, under sections 304- A, 279, 338, 427 IPC, was registered at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran. Alleging, inter-alia, that the deceased was their sole bread earner who used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month while working as a mason, that the respondent- claimants filed the claim petition. The appellants herein as well as their driver contested the claim petition on all possible grounds, including that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the motorcyclist himself. From the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1) Whether Bakhshish Singh died in an accident which took place on 1.11.2006 due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.3, Tehal Singh while driving bus No.PB-11-U-6754? OPP 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP 3) Relief.” FAO No.5329 of 2008 - 3 - The Tribunal has answered issue No.1 in favour of the respondent-claimants and while holding so, it has relied upon the statement of Gurmeet Kaur (AW1) who was riding the pillion and is an eye-witness to the accident. She has meticulously explained the manner in which the accident took place due to rash and reckless driving of the bus driver. The accident is stated to have been witnessed by Balwinder Singh. Besides oral version, the respondents claimants relied upon copy of the FIR (Ex.A1), and a certificate regarding conducting of the post-mortem of the deceased in Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran (Ex.EA1). It could not be disputed before the Tribunal that the bus driver (Tehal Singh) is already facing trial under Section 304-A IPC even though in his self-serving deposition, the said driver (RW1) claimed that the motorcyclist struck on the back side of the bus at a T-junction. The solitary contention raised in this appeal also rests upon the aforesaid plea, namely, that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the motorcyclist. Having heard Learned Counsel for the appellant at some length and on perusal of the impugned award, especially the statement of Gurmeet Kaur and the contents of the FIR, I am satisfied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. In such like proceedings, the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act is well within its competence to decide an issue regarding the rash and negligent driving on the preponderance of evidence and need not to follow the parameters required to be observed by the criminal court in order to prove the charge beyond shadow of doubt. No other point has been urged before this Court. FAO No.5329 of 2008 - 4 - Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. December 24, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge