IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.1640/2009(O&M) Date of Decision:15.4.2009. Union of India and others ..........Appellants Versus Smt.Sunita Devi and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. S.K.Sharma,Advocate for the appellants. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). CM No.8418-CII/2009. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay of 6 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.1640/2009. Appellants-Union of India through its Secretary,being the owner of Truck ALS No.04D161408-W(201) (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) alongwith respondent no.4-driver of the offending vehicle, by way of filing the present appeal, have laid challenge to the award dated 22.11.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short the Act) filed by respondents-Smt. Sunita Devi and Master Ravinder Kumar(minor) and Miss Sonia (Minor) being the widow and minor children of deceased Balwan Singh,Hav.No.4574671, was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal and the respondents-claimants were FAO No.1640/2009(O&M) 2 awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,89,500/- for the death of said Balwan Singh in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 12.6.2006, involving the offending truck. So far as the factum of accident, monthly income and age of the deceased and multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is concerned, the same have not been pressed at the time of arguments. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the impugned award is liable to set aside as it is based on mis-reading of evidence as the respondents-claimants have not been able to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned award. The respondents-claimants, in order to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, examined eye witness PW1 Hav.Rajvir son of Shri Shamsher Singh. Respondent no.1 Smt. Sunita Devi also appeared in the witness box as PW2. Through their affidavits Ex.PW-1/A and PW-2/A respectively, they deposed about the manner in which the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. They were also cross examined but nothing favourable could be extracted so as to shatter the case of the claimants. The claimants also produced on record FIR Ex.P1, which was lodged at the instance of PW1 Hav. Rajvir Singh and Post Mortem Report Ex.P2. The learned Tribunal, after taking into consideration the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 ,FIR (Ex.P1) and Post Mortem Report(Ex,P2) came to a conclusion that the accident in question took place on account of rash and FAO No.1640/2009(O&M) 3 negligent driving of offending vehicle. On the contrary, L.D.Kailash Chander, driver of the offending vehicle in his cross examination admitted that Army Authorities had initiated proceedings against him for having caused the accident and an FIR pertaining to the accident in question had also been registered against him, which has remained unchallenged as he did not approach the higher police authorities. During the course of arguments learned counsel could not point out anything which may show that the impugned award is based on mis-reading of evidence. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. 15.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge