FAO No. 5235 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5235 of 2010 Date of decision September 8, 2010 Amarjit Singh ....... Appellant Versus Mohinder Kaur and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the appellant. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is by the owner of the bus which was said to have been involved in the accident in a collision with a Motor Cycle. The case had been registered against the driver of the bus for involvement of the bus and the driver in the accident. The evidence relating to the accident was given by the pillion rider for the death of the Motor Cyclist. The first respondent driver of the bus gave evidence to the effect that the vehicle was not involved at all in the accident and the case had been falsely made. It was also his contention that the deceased Motor Cyclist was a young boy of less than 18 years and he did not have a driving license. The Tribunal found the involvement of the vehicle by the fact that there was an eye witness who was a pillion rider and who had given evidence about the rash driving of the bus driver. It rejected the evidence of the driver who attempted to state before the Court that the vehicle was not involved in the accident at all. It also took note of the fact that the criminal case had been registered against him and that the case was still in progress. Having regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the vehicle had been involved, coupled with the fact that there had been a criminal case FAO No. 5235 of 2010 2 registered against him, I have no reason to reject the finding of the Tribunal relating to the involvement of the vehicle. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there was yet another eye witness to the accident and he was not examined and the pillion rider was the cousin of the deceased and his testimony was interested. He would also state that it was unbelievable that in a case where the motor cyclist died, the pillion rider had no injuries at all. By the fact that the pillion rider did not have injuries, there is no reason to disbelieve the accident itself or he could not have been a pillion rider. In this case, the evidence was that the motor cyclist fell down by being hit on the head on the front side of the bus and the vehicle ran over his leg. He had been admitted in the Hospital and succumbed to injuries after few days. I cannot discard evidence of the witness by the only fact that he had no injuries and he could not therefore, be a pillion rider. I cannot also accept the contention that since the deceased did not have a driving license, he should be presumed to be negligent. There is preponderance of case law on this that no such presumption is possible. Please see, for instance, Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Thaeker Narottam Kalyanji (2000-2) 4 Guj LR 1577. 3. If the involvement of the vehicle is established and if the negligence is also attributed to the driver there, is escape from the consequences of the liability to pay the compensation. The deceased was a 10+2 student and the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,05,000/-. The amount is modest and would not require any interference. The appeal is without any merit and is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 8, 2010 archana