FAO No. 247 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 247 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.2.2010 ... Savitri Devi ................Appellant vs. Umed Singh and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: None for the appellant Sh. Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) Notice of the appeal was given to the appellant, which has been received back duly served, but none has appeared on her behalf. This is an appeal directed by Savitri Devi mother of Rajesh Kumar, claiming compensation on account of his death in a motor vehicular accident. Briefly stated, the case of the claimant as set forth in the claim petition is that Rajesh, 15-16 years old, was her son and student of 9th class. He was trying to board bus No. HYO 1563, he slipped his foot and fell down, he sustained injuries and died in the hospital at Bhiwani. FAO No. 247 of 1989 -2- It was pleaded that deceased was trying to board stationary bus from the window on left front side as the rear side window had been closed by the conductor and his foot was on the foot board, the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus with the result that there was a jerk and Rajesh Kumar fell down. Meanwhile, the driver of the bus, which was originally standing in the middle of the road, after starting the bus, suddenly swerved the bus partly towards his left side and in that process Rajesh Kumar was tampled and crushed under the left rear wheel. The case was contested by the respondents and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident and the resultant death of Rajesh Kumar was on account of rashness and negligence of respondent No.1 Umed Singh (driver) and respondent No.2 Ram Dass (conductor) ? OP claimant. 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled and from whom? OP claimant 3. Relief. The claimant examined PW-1 Dr. Vandana Pathak, who conducted the post mortem, PW-2 Taqdir Singh and PW-3 Tara Chand – eye witnesses. Claimant- Savitri Devi appeared as PW-4 and also examined PW-5 Head Constable Jai Narain. On the other hand, driver – Umed Singh and conductor Ram Dass appeared and deposed according to the version set out by them in the written statement. Learned Tribunal after appraisal of the evidence returned FAO No. 247 of 1989 -3- finding on issue No.1 against the claimant and has held that it was on account of negligence of Rajesh that he has received injuries and that driver and conductor were not negligent. In view of finding on issue No.1, the claim petition was accepted to the extent of no fault liability, granting an amount of Rs.15,000/- under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid judgment dated 25.11.1988, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimant. The claimant, in order to prove that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver and conductor of the bus, examined PW-2 Taqdir Singh and PW-3 Tara Chand. Learned Tribunal has discussed the evidence of Tara Chand and Taqdir Singh in para No. 18 of the judgment and after going through their testimony, reached to the conclusion that Rajesh was trying to enter into the bus from the front window after the conductor had given the whistle. He was holding books in one of his hands and ultimate conclusion was that deceased was at fault in the occurrence. On reappraisal of the evidence no other conclusion is possible except that has been arrived at by the Tribunal. According to the testimony of both the eyewitnesses, the backdoor which is normally entry point in the bus was closed and the deceased was trying to board the bus from the front door, which is normally the exit door. So, in view of the above discussion, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 stands affirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- under no fault liability under Section 92-A of the Motor FAO No. 247 of 1989 -4- Vehicle Act, 1939. So, no ground for enhancement is made out. The appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 11.2.2010 Judge chugh