FAO No.1516 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1516 of 2010 (O &M) Date of Decision: 25.03.2010 General Manager, Pepsu Roadway Transport Corporation. ..Appellant Vs. Bachhitar Singh & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of FAO Nos.1516, 1517 and 1518 of 2010, titled General Manager, Pepsu Roadway Transport Corporation Vs. Bachhitar Singh & Ors., General Manager, Pepsu Roadway Transport Corporation Vs. Jagdev Singh & Ors., and General Manager, Pepsu Roadway Transport Corporation Vs. Veer Paul Kaur & Ors., respectively, as they arise out of common award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana and common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals. For the sake of brevity facts are being taken from FAO FAO No.1516 of 2010 2 No.1516 of 2010. Owner and driver of the offending vehicle have challenged the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short the Tribunal), allowing a petition filed by the claimant/respondents under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act). The respondent/claimants sought compensation, on account of the death of Ramesh Singh son of Bachhitar Singh, in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 28.11.2008 at 7.30 PM . It was alleged, that the deceased was coming to his house after attending the marriage of his relative in Maruti Car, bearing registration No.PB-10-G-0652. When they reached near Haveli, a Bus No.PB-11-AB-5940 which was coming from Ludhiana and was being driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently, hit the Maruti Car from front side. Deceased Ramesh Singh along with four others who were sitting the Maruti car died on the spot. Driver of the offending bus ran away from the spot. Case of the claimants was that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.PB-11- AB-5940 driven by respondent No.2. Compensation was claimed by pleading that the deceased, was working as Raj Mistri and used to earn a sum of Rs.250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) per day. Deceased was said to be of good health. The learned Tribunal did not accept the oral evidence, in proof of income and assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month and dependency of the claimants at Rs.2000/- FAO No.1516 of 2010 3 (Rupees two thousand only) per month. A multiplier of 10 was applied to assess the compensation of Rs.2,43,000/- (Rupees two lac forty three thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent pr annum. On appreciation of evidence, learned Tribunal also held that Ramesh Singh died due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.PB-11-AB- 5940 in a rash and negligent manner on 28.11.2008. In recording this finding on issue No.1 qua the negligence of driver of the offending bus, learned Tribunal relied upon the statements of eye witnesses of the accident, who proved that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus. FIR was also registered against the bus driver. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal, on issue No.1 by contending that there were discrepancies in the statements of the eye witnesses in the cross- examination, like - in the examination-in-chief, it was stated that they were going to attend the marriage party, whereas in cross examination it was stated that they were coming after attending the marriage party. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that other eye witness was not examined, therefore, the case set up by the claimants could not be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that stand taken by the driver of the offending vehicle was more probable, that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car. On consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. FAO No.1516 of 2010 4 Eye witnesses were expected to be there, as admittedly the deceased and the witnesses were coming after attending a marriage party. Evidence of the eye witnesses, coupled with the fact that FIR was registered against the driver of the bus, leaves no manner of doubt that the bus was involved in the accident. The very fact, that all the occupants of the car died on the spot shows that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. In case the story set up by the appellant was to be believed, then the accident could not have resulted in the death of all the occupants of the car at the spot. The casualty arising out of the accident, in damage to the car and the death of occupants of car, leads to only one conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of th3e bus. Findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, therefore, on appreciation of evidence do not call for any interference by this court, in appeal. Consequently, being without any merit, all the appeals are dismissed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 25.03.2010 Judge rp