FAO No.1148 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1148 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:1.8.2011 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ...Appellant Versus Bhupinder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.G.S.Gill, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- JITENDRA CHUAHAN, J. CM No.3017-CII of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 24 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Main case The short question involved in the present appeal, filed by the owner, is that whether the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.6 (driver of offending vehicle)? From the statement of Sh.Mann Singh, PW1, it is made out that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.5 (driver of the offending vehicle). It is also not disputed that respondent No.6 and Sh.Mann Singh, PW1, removed Karamjit Singh (since deceased) to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, where during treatment he died. Besides this an FIR was also registered against respondent No.5 and he is facing trial. The learned Tribunal also noticed that the offending FAO No.1148 of 2011 (O&M) 2 vehicle was not insured. These circumstances suggest that the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. No contrary evidence was adduced by the appellant before the learned Tribunal. In view of above, there is no reason to discard the finding on issue No.1 recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident resulting in the death of deceased Karamjit Singh. As the offending vehicle was not insured, the learned Tribunal observed that the appellant (employer) and respondent No.6 (driver of the offending vehicle) would be liable to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. Although, no other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, yet I have rescanned the entire case file minutely and find that the award of the learned Tribunal is just appropriate and reasonable, therefore, no interference is called for. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 1.8.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) MKS JUDGE