FAO No. 2219 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2219 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.05.2010 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, and another ....Appellants Versus Smt. Manjit Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Gurinder Singh Gill, Advocate, for the appellants. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This judgment shall dispose off FAO No.2219 of 2010 titled Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, and another Vs. Smt. Manjit Kaur and others, and FAO No.2379 of 2010 titled Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (P.R.T.C.) Vs. Nanak Singh and others, as they arise out of the same accident and the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from FAO No.2219 of 2010 titled Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, and another Vs. Smt. Manjit Kaur and others. The claimant/respondents filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by pleading therein that the accident between vehicle No.PB-10-BM-341 and bus No.PB-11-S-5478 occurred on 21.2.2007. The case set up by the claimants was, that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus No. PB-11-S-5478 and, therefore, they were entitled to compensation. Claim petition was contested by the appellants, as the driver of FAO No. 2219 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the bus had also died in the said accident, by pleading therein that the accident, in fact, had occurred due to the negligence of the truck No.DL- 1GB-5334 and not on account of negligent driving of the bus, as alleged. However, it was not disputed that FIR with regard to this accident was registered against the driver of the bus. In order to support the averments, that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of bus No. PB-11-S-5478, which was being driven by Baljit Singh deceased, the claimants examined PW1 Jugraj Singh, an eye-witness to the incident, PW2 Manjit Kaur and also proved FIR Ex.PW1/B. By way of documentary evidence, death certificate and post-mortem report was also proved. On the other hand, in spite of the specific stand taken in the written statement by the appellants, that accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No.DL-1GB-5334, no evidence was led in support thereof. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by the appellants. Consequently, the claimants in FAO No.2219 of 2010 titled Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, and another Vs. Smt. Manjit Kaur and others, were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lac only), whereas in FAO No.2379 of 2010 titled Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (P.R.T.C.) Vs. Nanak Singh and others, the claimants were held entitled to Rs.5,80,000/- (Rupees five lac and eighty thousand only). Mr. Gurinder Singh Gill, learned counsel, appearing on behalf FAO No. 2219 of 2010 (O&M) -3- of the appellants has challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 holding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of bus owned by the appellants, by pleading that the witness examined by the claimants, who was an eye-witness, also stated that bus was hit from the behind, which resulted in bus hitting the sumo and then it fell in the ditch, therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 cannot be sustained. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, deserves to be noticed, to be rejected for the reasons, that claimants in support of their claim that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, besides examining two witnesses had placed reliance on FIR registered against the driver of the bus. Though, he could not be prosecuted on account of his death. However, in spite of taking a positive defence that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver, no evidence was led. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal committed an error, in recording a finding, that the accident, had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, owned by the appellants and fastened the appellants with liability, as the bus was not insured. No ground to interfere with the award passed is made out. No merit. Dismissed. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 18, 2010 R.S.