F.A.O. No.3915 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** F.A.O. No.3915 of 2008 Date of Decision:04.11.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala .....Appellant Vs. Amarjit Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 5.8.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda whereby he awarded an amount of Rs.7,68,000/- in favour of the claimants and against respondents No.1 to 3 on account of compensation. Feeling aggrieved therewith, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (hereinafter to be referred as `the Corporation”) has preferred this appeal. The facts giving rise to the claim petition are that on 24.5.2006, Harcharanjit Singh since deceased was performing his duty as an employee of traffic police at bus stand Mansa. Meanwhile, the offending bus bearing registration No.PB-11-AB-5016 belonging to the Corporation being driven rashly and negligently and at fast speed came there. The deceased gave a signal to Tehal Singh driver, who crushed the former beneath the offending bus by driving rashly and negligently. Harcharanjit Singh succumbed to the injuries. He was 50 years of age at the time of his death. He was working as Head Constable in Punjab Police Department and earning Rs.20,000/- per F.A.O. No.3915 of 2008 -2- month. FIR No.82 dated 24.5.2006 was lodged at Police Station City Mansa. He is survived by his widow Amarjit Kaur, daughter Sukhvir Kaur, son Paramjit Singh and mother Jasmer Kaur. The respondents before the Tribunal contested the claim petition. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Harcharanjit Singh has died in Motor Vehicular Accident due to the rashness and negligent driving of Tehal Singh while driving Bus No.PB-11-AB-5016? OPA 2. Whether claimants are entitled to compensation? If yes, to which extent and from whom? OPA 3. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, besides going through the findings returned by the learned Tribunal with due care and circumspection. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants urged with great eloquence that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in holding that the respondent- driver has caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and further lost sight of the fact that no independent evidence was led by the claimants to prove the accident and negligence of the driver. To add further to it, the only examined eye witness ASI Nirmal Singh, PW2 has failed to give suitable account. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with this submission. A glance through the findings returned by the learned Tribunal would reveal that the credibility of this eye witness could not be impeached F.A.O. No.3915 of 2008 -3- in any manner. More to the point, no motive has been attributed to him for deposing against the driver- respondent. On appraising the entire evidence, it transpires that no holes can be picked in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on all the issues. Thus, prima-facie no case is made out to interfere in the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Sequelly, this appeal is dismissed in limine. November 04, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE