FAO No.1785 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1785 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.9.2009 Jagdish Yadav and another ......Appellant(s) Versus Jag Mohan and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is an appeal filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle challenging the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari, whereby the respondents have been awarded compensation on account of death of their son Ankit which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by appellant No.2. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the finding of the Tribunal that Ankit died due to rash and negligent driving of appellant No.2 is contrary to the evidence on record as Hemant Kumar(RW-1), who was allegedly accompanying deceased, had stated in his evidence that it was Ankit (deceased) who dashed the motorcycle in the stationary bus and thus, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award. The relevant observations of the Tribunal reads as follows: “It is worth highlighting that PW4 Rohtash Singh has given the eye account. He testified that on 7.10.2004 around 7-30 a.m when he was waiting for bus nearby FAO No.1785 of 2008 (O&M) 2 PWD office, Kosli, the offending bus bearing registration No.DL-1P-6324 being driven by respondent No.1. Dharampal rashly or negligently struck against the motor-cycle driven by Hemant Kumar and the deceased Ankit was the pillion rider. Due to the impact of the accident, Ankit Kumar expired on the spot and Hemant Kumar sustained injuries. His statement was also recorded by the police, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW3/A was registered. It is note-worthy that the testimony of eye witness gathers much importance because he being eye witness lodged FIR. It would not be out of place to mention that nothing could be elicited to discredit his trustworthiness despite searching cross- examination. In other words, no material contradictions have appeared in his cross-examination. On the other hand, the respondents have examined RW1 Hemant Kumar, who was allegedly driving the motor-cycle, deposed that it was Ankit deceased who was driving the motor-cycle and he was the pillion rider. When they reached in the vicinity of the office of PWD, Kosli, the motor-cycle struck against the stationary bus, with the result they both sustained injuries. It is note-worthy that the opening lines of his cross-examination suggest that police had recorded his statement in respect of the accident. The testimony of this witness holds no water because the driver of the offending bus did not dare to appear in the witness box to support RW1 Hemant Kumar and rebut the evidence FAO No.1785 of 2008 (O&M) 3 adduced by the petitioners. It is settled proposition of law that evidence before a claims Tribunal is not required to be scrutinized in a manner as is done in civil suit or a criminal case. The proceedings before a claim Tribunal is summary inquiry whereas in a civil case, the rule is preponderance of probability and in a criminal case the rule is proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, no nicety, doubt or suspicion should weigh with the Tribunal in deciding the motor accident claim case. I am supported by the law laid down in U.O.I and another v. Saraswati Debnath & others 1995 ACJ 980. In the wake of the testimony of the eye witness PW4 Rohtash Singh, the above cited celebrated authority is applicable on all force to the case of the claimants.” A perusal of the aforesaid shows that the Tribunal has recorded a finding on appreciation of evidence against the appellants. It is the specific stand of the claimant-respondents that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by appellant No.2 and have also proved the same by appearing himself as PW-1 and from the statement of PW-4 who was eye witness of the accident and author of FIR. The statement of Hemant KUmar RW-1 does not carry any value as admittedly, the appellants have not even entered into the witness box to deny the factum of accident as alleged by the respondents. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. September 23, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE