FAO No.1345 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.1345 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : September 10, 2009 HRTC ... Appellant VERSUS Anandi Devi and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Hitesh Pandey, Advocate for Mr.Arun Sood, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Bains, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.H.S.Baath, Advocate for respondent No.5. A.N.JINDAL, J.- CM No.6827-CII of 2009 : CM allowed. Delay condoned. FAO No.1345 of 2009 : Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 11.3.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.3,63,000/- to claimants – respondents No.1 to 4, against the appellant – Himachal Road Transport Corporation (herein referred as the appellant) and respondent No.5 - Kamal Singh Thapa (herein referred as FAO No.1345 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] respondent No.5) jointly and severally. Briefly stated the facts are that on 7.7.2003 at about 1.15 PM, Mahesh Kumar while sitting on the pillion seat of the Scooter bearing Reg.No.CH01P-6698 driven by Anand Kumar, reached near the small chowk of Sector-22, Chandigarh. In the meantime, respondent No.5 while driving the bus bearing Reg.No.HP39A-3905 rashly and negligently struck against the scooter, as a result of which Mahesh Kumar suffered injuries and ultimately died. The claim petition was contested by the appellant and respondent No.5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Mahesh Kumar died in a road accident which took place on 7.7.2003 at about 1.15 AM in the area of Chandigarh due to rash and negligent driving of Bus NO.HP39A-3905 by its driver respondent No.1, owned by respondents No. 2 to 4? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to any amount as compensation, if so, its effect? OPP 3. Relief.” The claim petition was accepted and the Tribunal awarded compensation to respondents No.1 to 4. Arguments heard. Record perused. Ashok Kumar (PW2) is the eye-witness of the accident. He proved the manner in which the accident took place. His testimony stands FAO No.1345 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] supported by Jatinder (PW3). Kamal Singh (RW1) in his cross-examination has also admitted that on the day of the accident, he was going from Delhi to Dharamshala and the accident took place on account of the fact that the bus went out of control as he could not apply the brakes. As such, no iota of doubt remains that the Tribunal rightly decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and against the appellant and respondents No.5. On examination of the entire evidence, nothing is found to infer that the compensation awarded was exaggerated one. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. September 10, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE