IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MVA) No. 439 of 2005. Decided on: 29.10.2010. __________________________________________________ Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation. … Appellant. Versus Smt. Renu Sharma. … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Pt. Om Parkash Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard. 3. Admittedly, the death of the deceased, Baby Savnam Sharma, aged about six years, which had taken place on 9.8.1995 had occurred in a motor vehicle accident involving bus No. PB-11-9490 belonging to the appellant-Corporation and being driven at the material time by its driver, Shri Ujagar Singh, who was initially arraigned as respondent No.2,but whose name was lateron ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 21.11.2005 of this Court. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 83,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased to her mother, Smt. Renu Sharma, being the claimant. 4. The impugned award dated 4.8.2005 is challenged by the appellant-Corporation mainly on two- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 fold grounds, firstly that the petition initially filed was dismissed in default and an application seeking to restore the same was also dismissed and it was only thereafter that the petition out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation was not legally maintainable and secondly there is no evidence to establish rash and negligent driving on the part of the said Shri Ujagar Singh, driver of the offending vehicle. 5. I shall proceed to take up both the submissions for discussion and decision herein below. 6. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the settled legal position that the right to claim compensation for an injury or death owing to a motor vehicle accident would not be defeated merely because an earlier petition for compensation was dismissed in default and thereafter, an application seeking to restore the same was also dismissed and it was only thereafter, that a fresh petition was filed for the reason that no such technical or procedural rigour would apply to a proceeding of the present nature as also for the reason that as of now there is no limitation for filing a petition of this nature since amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. 7. With regard to the second contention relating to rash and negligent driving suffice it to say that this aspect of the matter is duly established even from the deposition of RW-1 Ujagar Singh, driver of the offending 3 vehicle, who has stated that when the accident had occurred, it was raining. The deceased had already crossed the road. However, since her ‘chappal’ had stuck in mud on the road, she had come back to lift the same when she had stuck against the rear side of the bus and had suffered head injury. He has further stated that the bus was on the ascent and as such, was in low speed. All this would go to show that he had already observed the child using the road and the circumstances leading to the accident as stated by him are of such nature that the principle of res ipsa loquitur can very well be pressed into service in the present case. Thus, the second contention also does not survive for consideration. 8. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. October 29, 2010. (cr)