FAO 468 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO 468 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 10 , 2008 BHIM SINGH ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SMT. BHAGMATI ETC. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 4. AJAI LAMBA, J. Bhim Singh, owner of the offending bus, has filed this appeal against award dated 9.9.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari. At the time of issue of notice of motion, it was contended that the bus was not insured. From the statement of Parveen Kumar (Annexure P-1), it was clear that the bus driver was not negligent. In fact, the deceased FAO 468 of 2007 2 himself was negligent and, therefore, the appellant, the owner of the bus, could not be held liable. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the award is based on perverse reading of evidence and is only based on the FIR, challan, charge-sheet and post-mortem report and the fact that the bus was released on supradari, in favour of the appellant. The contention, therefore, is that there is no evidence to indicate that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and, therefore, the material indicated above would not be sufficient to hold that Rajinder Singh, driver of the bus, was negligent in driving the bus and in causing death of Mahabir alias Sat Parkash. I have gone through the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The entire material available on the record has been considered in para-8 of the award and the conclusions have been drawn in paras 9 to 11. The conclusion that Rajinder Singh (driver) was negligent in driving the vehicle is based not only on the material but also the statement of PW-2 Parveen Kumar, who happens to be the eye witness of the incident. The facts, when collectively read, indicate that Parveen Kumar, PW-2, his cousin Mahabir alias Sat Parkash (deceased) and a number of other persons, including Abhey Singh and Jai Narain, constituted the marriage party of Dharambir son of Rohtash. They had come to Village Rajiyaki. At about 11.00 p.m., they were standing at the Bus Stand of the village and were waiting for the bus that was to carry the Baratis. The driver of the bus came from Village Badhrana side, in a rash and negligent manner and hit Mahabir FAO 468 of 2007 3 alias Sat Parkash. Mahabir alias Sat Parkash received injuries and was taken to the General Hospital. He succumbed to the injuries. Formal FIR (Exhibit PW-2/A) was lodged. Exhibit PW1/B is the medico-legal report and Exhibit PW-1/C is the post-mortem report. After investigation, the final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, was presented. Vide order dated 12.1.2004, the charges, for committing the offences under Sections 279/304-A, Indian Penal Code and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, were framed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari. The charge-sheet has been placed on record as Exhibit PW-7/B. It is, thus, explicit that the documents have been read and considered by the Tribunal collectively with the statement of PW-2 Parveen Kumar. About the statement of PW-2 Parveen Kumar, it has been argued that it does not indicate negligence of the bus driver and, rather, indicates that the deceased himself was at fault. I have gone through the statement of PW-2 Parveen Kumar. The witness has clearly stated that he along with the deceased and other members of the marriage party came back from Barat Ghar near the Bus Stand and at about 11.00 p.m., were waiting for the bus to come. While they were standing at the Bus Stand, the bus driven by Rajinder Singh, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased from its Conductor (left) side. Thereafter, Mahabir alias Sat Parkash was removed to the General Hospital for treatment. He was declared dead during the intervening night of 13/14.5.2003. The report was made to the police. Parveen Kumar was recalled for cross-examination, whereupon FAO 468 of 2007 4 he categorically stated that “It is incorrect to suggest that Respondent No.1 was not driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident”. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased himself was at fault, is not borne out from the statement of Parveen Kumar, as there is no suggestion to the effect that Mahabir alias Sat Parkash (deceased) was at fault. Rather, there was a suggestion that the bus was not involved in the accident at all. It was further suggested to the witness that Mahabir alias Sat Parkash had not accompanied the marriage party at all. Thus, the argument that is sought to be raised at this stage does not form part of the case of the appellant before the Tribunal and, therefore, no judicial notice of the same can be taken. Be that as it may, having gone through the statement of PW-2 Parveen Kumar and having considered its implication, I find no error in the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal to the effect that Rajinder Singh was at fault while driving the bus. I have also taken note of the fact that while the accident took place at about 11.00 p.m. on 13.5.2003, the information was given to the police at 3.30 a.m. on 14.5.2003. This shows promptness. The factum of the marriage party, the details of the bus, the time of the accident and the place of accident, have been mentioned. The FIR was investigated and the final report/challan has been presented indicating the involvement of Rajinder Singh (driver). Having considered the entire material available on the investigation file, even charges have been framed against said Rajinder Singh. The possession of the bus was taken and was released on supradari FAO 468 of 2007 5 to none other but the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the other witnesses available at the spot have not been examined, does not hold any ground as it is generally perceived that the members of the public do not want to get involved in cases. Having regard to the above noticed facts, I find that no substantial question of law has been made out so as to call for interference with the impugned award. Learned counsel for the appellant wants me to re-appreciate evidence and come to a different conclusion. I do not find any perverse reading of evidence in the matter. The entire relevant material has been considered and forms basis of the impugned award. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. April 10 , 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE