FAO No.711 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.711 of 2006 Date of Decision: 27.10.2010 National Insurance Company Limited .....Appellant Vs Ramphal & ors. .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Rajesh Hooda, Advocate, for Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the appellant, None for respondents No.1 to 6, Mr.Kunal Garg, AAG Haryana, for respondents No.7 & 8. **** K.Kannan J. (Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability and involvement of the insured vehicle, having had the benefit of defence under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The accident, as narrated by the claimants, was a result of collision of the deceased who was riding a motorcycle with the insured's bus. The accident was said to have taken place at the time when the insured's bus was coming out of the bus-stand, driven negligently and rashly by the driver which caused accident with the motorcycle. The driver of the insured bus gave evidence to the effect that as the bus was coming out of the bus-stand, there were some FAO No.711 of 2006 2 college students chasing the bus to get into it and the motorcyclist was coming behind. In order to avoid hitting the padestrians to catch the bus, he lost balance, fell down and succumbed to injuries. The Tribunal did not accept the case that there was no impact at all of the motorcyclist with the insured bus by citing two instances: one, the driver himself had reported to the Depot Inspector that there was a case of death but his vehicle was not involved; two, the driver had been challaned, albeit with a certain delay when after the death of the deceased, the driver of the bus had been charged for offences under Section 279 & 304B IPC. The Tribunal reasoned that if there had been no involvement of the bus, there was simply no need to make a report to the Depot Inspector. I can only say, that it was an instance of a person smitten by guilt that his own driving ought to have caused the accident. 3. I find the reasoning of the Tribunal appropriate in the circumstances and see no ground to take a different view. The finding relating to the negligent driving of the insured's bus is, therefore, maintained and the appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed. 27.10.2010 (K.Kannan) sailesh Judge