FAO No.5225 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5325 of 2008 Date of decision: December 24, 2008. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner(s) v. Gurbachan Singh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Vinod Mahandru, Advocate for the appellant. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This appeal is directed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., who is aggrieved at the award dated 1.10.2008 passed by the MACT, Faridkot whereby respondents No.1 to 6 – claimants have been granted compensation of Rs.3,84,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition. As per the claimants' case, Malkeet Singh was returning from village Sandhwan on scooter bearing registration No.PB-29-A-4625 towards Faridkot. The father of Malkeet Singh, namely, Gurbachan Singh (respondent No.1) and one Boota Singh were following Malkeet Singh on FAO No.5225 of 2008 -: 2 :- another motorcycle. When they were away about 1½ kilometers from the workshop of Baba Rode Shah towards Sandhwan, a bus bearing registration No.PB-30-D-0885 owned by respondent No.7 – company and driven by respondent No.8 (Balwinder Singh) came from the opposite side. The bus driver allegedly lost control over the bus and hit into the scooter of Malkeet Singh who fell into the pits on the roadside and died at the spot due to multiple grievous injuries. FIR No.57 dated 11.2.2008, under sections 304- A, 337, 427, 279 IPC, was got registered at Police Station, Kotkapura against the bus driver. Alleging that the deceased Malkeet Singh was a hale and hearty young man of about 37 years age and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month, that the respondent-claimants, who are the parents, widow and three minor children of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20 lacs. The bus driver and owner as well as the insurance company filed their respective written statements and contested the claim petition. From the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1) Whether on 11.2.2008 at about 10.00 A.M. in the area of village Sandhwan Malkiat Singh son of Gurbachan Singh had died on account of his accident with the offending bus being driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently? OPP 2) Whether the claimants are the legal heirs and were dependent upon the deceased? OPP 3) Whether the claimants are entitled to the grant of compensation, as prayed for, if so, to what amount and FAO No.5225 of 2008 -: 3 :- against whom? OPP 4) Whether the respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident, if so its effect? OPR. 5) Relief.” The Tribunal vide its impugned award has answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and has accordingly awarded the compensation. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant insurance company is that the respondent-claimants have miserably failed to prove that the accident was caused due to trash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It is argued by the learned counsel that though the accident has been proved, however, whether it was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, has not been proved at all. Having heard Learned Counsel for the appellant at some length and on perusal of the impugned award, I do not find any merit in the afore- noticed contention. True it is that the respondent-claimants have not produced any eye-witness to explain the manner in which the accident took place. However, the claimants have produced certified copy of FIR No.57 dated 11.2.2002 which was got exhibited as Ex.P2, without any objection on behalf of the appellant company or the other contesting respondents. It is not disputed by Learned Counsel for the appellant that the narration of events in the FIR leaves no room to doubt that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. The bus driver has been specifically accused of causing the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. The aforesaid piece of evidence has gone unrebutted as no FAO No.5225 of 2008 -: 4 :- evidence to the contrary has been brought on record by the respondents. It was not the case of the appellant that the deceased himself was responsible for causing the accident, nor there is an iota of evidence to that effect. The well known maxim res ipsa loquitur can be successfully pressed into aid to hold that whenever a heavier vehicle strikes into a light vehicle like a scooter from the front side, the accident shall be attributable to the reckless driving of the heavy vehicle, unless proved otherwise. No interference in the findings returned by the Tribunal while deciding issue No.1, therefore, is called for. No other point has been urged. Dismissed. December 24, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge