FAO No.4917 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4917 of 2011 Date of Decision : 03.08.2011 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala .......Appellant Versus Nimmo Devi and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) Heard. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, rather, the accident had already taken place before the bus of the appellant reached the spot. It was the driver of the bus, Major Singh, who removed the injured to the hospital. On the other hand, there are unrebutted observations recorded by the learned Tribunal holding that it is conclusively proved that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-PRTC. The driver-respondent No.3 is facing trial under Sections 304-A, 337, 338, 279 and 427 IPC. He did not make any 1 FAO No.4917 of 2011 representation to the higher authorities pleading false implication. The appellant produced Gurtej Singh as RW1, Fauja Singh as RW2, and Inder Singh as RW3, who proved their versions before the learned Tribunal. They are claiming themselves to be the passengers of the offending vehicle, but they did not produce any tickets or bus pass to prove the fact of their being the eye-witnesses. There are material contradictions in the statements of both these witnesses. In the absence of any positive proof that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident, the assertion made by the claimant goes unrebutted. No other point has been canvassed by the learned counsel. Accordingly, after scanning the entire Award and other relevant documents produced by the learned counsel, I feel that there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 03.08.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 2