IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 160 of 1996 Date of decision: March 08, 2010 Jaswinder Singh alias Jasminder Singh .. Appellant Vs. Karnail Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None. A.N. Jindal, J This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.7.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, declining to award compensation. None has put in appearance on behalf of the parties despite several calls made to them, therefore, the appeal being an old one, I am left with no option but to decide the same in their absence. On 5.3.1991, at about 8.00 a.m Jasminder Singh while driving scooter bearing registration No.CHL-5036 and accompanied by Kulwinder Singh, who was sitting on the pillion, was going from village Palsora towards Chandigarh for attending their duties, when they reached near village Badheri, U.T. Chandigarh, one bus bearing registration No.CH01G5468 driven by Karnail Singh respondent No.1 (herein referred as 'the respondent No.1) rashly and negligently and at a high speed came from the opposite side, and struck against their scooter. Resultantly, the appellant suffered injuries so as Kulwinder Singh. Consequently, both of them were shifted to P.G.I. Chandigarh and then they were admitted in General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. Consequently, the claim petition for the injuries suffered by the appellant was filed. This petition was contested by the respondents by filing reply, wherein they denied all the allegations and further stated that the respondent No.1 who was driving the bus in question on route No.3-C, from PGI to Dera Bassi, had stopped the same at Badheri Bus stop at about 8.30 a.m. to enable the passengers to alight. When the passengers were in the process of F.A.O. No. 160 of 1996 -2- alighting from the bus, the scooterist along with rider on the pillion came from the side of Mohali at a fast speed and in the process of saving the cyclist, the scooterist lost control and hit his scooter against the front number plate of the stationery bus. Thus, the accident had taken place on account of the fault on the part of the claimant, therefore, he is not entitled to compensation. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the accident was caused by respondent No.1 by driving Bus No.CH01G5468 rashly and negligently? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom?OPP 3. Relief. The Tribunal while deciding issue No.1 and 2 against the claimant dismissed the claim petition. The prime controversy in the instant case is whether the accident took place on account of the fault on the part of the respondent No.1. In this regard, it may be observed that as per version set up by the claimant, the bus had come at a high speed while being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No.1 and had struck against the scooter of the appellant. To the contrary, the case of the respondent is that the appellant struck the scooter in the stationery bus. In order to establish the negligence of the respondent No.1, the claimant has examined two persons travelling on the scooter, but the glaring fact is that the accident though took place on 5.3.1991, yet, no case was got registered against the respondent No.1. It appears that the story set up by the respondent is different as the claimant has stated that the matter was reported regarding the occurrence by the claimant himself but the said FIR has not come forth which could enable the court to reach the conclusion. The claimant in the latter part of his statement has stated that he had simply recorded the DDR by exonerating him therefrom. Even that DDR was not got proved. Had the respondent F.A.O. No. 160 of 1996 -3- No.1 been indicted as the person causing the accident and had SI Ram Singh had tried to exonerate the respondent No.1, then the claimant should have brought the matter to the notice of the high ups, but nothing of that sort was done. The onus to prove the rashness and negligence was upon the claimant and he was to shift the onus by leading cogent and convincing evidence, but in the present case, the evidence that has been led by the claimant does not support his plea that the accident was caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent No.1. Since the elements of rashness and negligence do not stand proved, the respondent No.1 could not be held liable. As such, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. March 08, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge