FAO No. 728 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- FAO No. 728 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.02.2008 United India Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Smt. Premo Devi and others ...Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav -.- Present : Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the Appellant -.- Nirmal Yadav, J. (Oral) C.M. No. 4189 CII of 2008 This is an application for condonation of delay of 4 days in filing the appeal. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. FAO No. 728 of 2008 This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Award dated 16.10.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar. Learned counsel for the appellant-Company argued that the FAO No. 728 of 2008 (O&M) -2- learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident, in question, took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep bearing registration No. HR 39-A-0538. It is submitted that Premo Devi, one of the eye witnesses, had stated before the learned Judicial Magistrate, in a criminal case, that the driver of the other vehicle did not take care, while crossing the bus, which was parked at the Bus Stand and could not control his vehicle. She had denied that the accident, in question, was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is without any force, as the learned Tribunal, while deciding issue No. 1, has discussed the testimonies of Premo Devi, Basau and Baljeet, who received injuries in the said accident on 26.03.2004. They have categorically stated, in their affidavits, that they were going to village Bhanbhori to pay obeisance to goddess (Mata) on non-offending vehicle, when a Jeep bearing registration No. HR 39-A-0538 came from the side of village Sehrera in a rash and negligent manner and struck against their vehicle. All the aforesaid three witnesses have also categorically stated that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 while driving the offending vehicle-Jeep HR 39 A-0538. Apart from above, no other evidence was relevant, to determine the issue. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, holding the present appellant-Insurance Company, along with driver and owner of the offending vehicle, liable to pay compensation to the injured/claimants, jointly and severally, cannot be said to be suffering from FAO No. 728 of 2008 (O&M) -3- any patent illegality or irregularity, which may warrant any interference by this Court. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav) Judge February 28, 2008 mohan