FAO No.1931 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1931 of 1995 Date of Decision.23.12.2010 Parveen Kumar son of Om Parkash resident of village Baland, Tehsil and District Rohtak ......Appellant Versus State of Haryana through the Collector, Rohtak and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate and Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana for respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the award of dismissal of the claim in a case where the claimant contended that he had been injured in a motor accident when the driver of the bus in which he was travelling had applied brakes suddenly and he was ejaculated from the bus. The contention was that the driver did not stop and he was taken to the hospital and he had prolonged treatment of more than 65 days. There had been a fracture of the shaft femur and k-nailing had been done for reduction of the fracture. 2. The accident itself had been denied by the Haryana Roadways and evidence was led through the driver of the bus, who said that no such accident had taken place and no complaint had even been FAO No.1931 of 1995 -2- registered with the police. The Tribunal found that the reference to the bus number in the MLR was an interpolation. It is not very clear from the evidence or in the judgment as to when the document was tendered and through whom it was exhibited as evidence. 3. Significantly, in the petition it is stated that there were two fellow passengers in the bus namely Roop Singh and Shri Kishan, who had taken him to the hospital. It was strange in this case neither of them had been examined. On the other hand, one Raj Kumar was examined who gave evidence to the effect that he was a fellow passenger and he knew that the claimant had been thrown out of the vehicle and the accident had taken place only by negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 4. The Tribunal had also observed that even if the evidence of the claimant were to be accepted as true, even then a negligence cannot be attributed to the driver, since he was alleged to be applied the brakes when a buffalo was crossing and therefore,there was no negligence. The case would have been credible if there had been even a complaint to the police in relation to the accident. I find the evidence most artificial that a driver in a crowded bus could defy the crowd and take the vehicle when a passenger fell down. It is the immediate mob mentality to stop the bus and force the driver to take the vehicle to the hospital to get immediate medical attention for a person, who is injured in the accident. I cannot again accept that the driver could have driven on without caring to take the injured person from the bus. 5. The Tribunal has found that this vehicle could not have been FAO No.1931 of 1995 -3- involved in the accident and if two views are even possible, I would go with the view taken by the Tribunal that the claimant has not been able to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. The MLR can be only relied on to say that he had a fall from some bus but it is not possible to bring the nexus to the respondent's vehicle for the injury suffered by him. 6. The award is sustained and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 23, 2010 Pankaj*