IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. F.A.O. (MVA) No.: 217 of 2004. Decided on: 15.07.2008. The Managing Director, Cheran Transport Corporation. … … Appellant. Versus Leela Devi and Others. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. H.S. Rawat, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4: Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate vice Sh. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For Respondent No.5: Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): This F.A.O. has been filed against the award dated 4.3.2003 passed by the learned M.A.C.T., Hamirpur in MAC case No.20 of 2000 whereby a compensation of Rs.6,87,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the claimants had filed a petition for the award of compensation on account of the loss they suffered due to the death of Shri Karamjit Singh in the accident. The deceased, Karamjit Singh was working as Sergeant in the Indian Air Force. His monthly salary was Rs.6000/-. At the relevant time he was posted in Base Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Station, Salur, Tehsil Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu). On 29.1.1994 around 1.25 P.M. he was on his way to his quarter on his own scooter to have lunch. When he reached on the main road after coming from the main gate of the Base Station and was driving his scooter on the extreme left side of the road, the offending bus bearing No.TCB-1842 driven by respondent No.5 in a very high speed and negligent manner came from the opposite direction. The driver lost control of the bus and in the process hit the scooter. The deceased fell down and received multiple serious injuries. He succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The claim petition was preferred by mother, widow and minor daughters. The appellant and the driver of the bus had contested the claim petition. The learned M.A.C.T. has awarded a sum of Rs.6,87,000/- on 4.3.2003. The appellant has assailed this award dated 4.3.2003. Mr. H.S. Rawat had strenuously argued that the award dated 4.3.2003 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further contended that the learned M.A.C.T. has recorded a wrong finding that the bus in question was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver, i.e. respondent No.5. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Sood appearing vice counsel on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 has supported the claim dated 4.3.2003. Mr. Lalit Sharma appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 has adopted the argument of Mr. H.S. Rawat. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The accident has taken place on 29.1.1994. Deceased Karamjit Singh was driving his scooter bearing registration No.78-A-3563. He was going to his quarter for lunch. - 3 - PW-2, Harnam Singh is the sole eye witness to the accident. He was also serving as Warrant Officer at the relevant time at Salur, Air Force Station. He was following the deceased on 29.1.1994 on his motor cycle. He has deposed that after reaching main road since they had to go towards their residences, they had slowed down the speed of their respective vehicles. According to him, the deceased was ahead to him and at that time he noticed two buses coming from the opposite direction and the driver of the offending bus was over-taking another bus in a rash and negligent manner and while doing so, the driver had brought the offending bus on the edge of the road on his left side and as the speed of the bus was excessive, the driver lost his control over the bus and hit the deceased. The statement of PW-2 cannot be disbelieved. He has seen two buses coming from the opposite direction and it was only when the respondent No.5 was over-taking another bus, he lost control which resulted in the accident. He was following the deceased on his motor cycle. It has come in his statement that they had slowed down the speed of their vehicles. RW-1 is the driver of the offending bus. He has admitted that the road at the place of accident was quite wide and two buses could simultaneously cross without any hindrance. It is evident from the contents of Ex.P-2, i.e. the copy of F.I.R. wherein it is recorded that the driver of the offending bus was rash and negligent while driving the same and was responsible for the accident. The report was lodged at Police Station, Salur (Coimbatore) by the Air Force authorities on the basis of which F.I.R. No.42/94 under Sections 279 and 338 was registered against respondent No.5. He was challaned. However, he was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palladan. The fact that respondent No.5, driver of the offending bus was acquitted will have no bearing on the out-come of the claim petition. It is settled law that - 4 - under the Criminal Jurisprudence, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has to award just and fair compensation on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. The findings recorded by the leaned M.A.C.T. that the respondent No.5 was responsible for causing the accident are in accordance with law and need not be interferred by this Court. The learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation after taking into consideration the income of the deceased and after applying proper multiplier. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. July 15, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), (sck) Judge.