In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No.2273 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: September 07, 2009 Uttar Pradesh Roadways .. Appellant Vs. Nirmala Devi and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this appeal is the award dated 3.2.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.3,56,000/- in favour of the claimants and against the respondent No.2- appellant (herein referred as 'the appellant) and respondent No.3, on account of the death of Naresh Soni in a motor vehicular accident. The brief resume of facts is that on 9.4.2007, Naresh Soni (since deceased) while driving four wheeler Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR-47A-5447 was going towards Gaziabad side and when he reached near village Baith, a bus bearing registration No.UP-25Q-9731, rashly and negligently came and hit the four wheeler, resultantly Naresh Soni sustained injuries and died at the spot. The other passengers of the bus also received injuries. The accident was witnessed by Hari Lal and his wife who lodged the FIR in Police Station, Simbwali. As an aftermath of the accident, the claimants filed the claim petition. The said claim petition was contested by the appellant with the averments that the deceased was rash and negligent and he struck his tempoo against the bus, as a result of which he died. However, it was admitted that the respondent No.1 being the driver of the U.P. Road Transport was driving the bus at the time of accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :- F.A.O. No.2273 of 2009 -2- *** 1. Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.UP-25Q-9731 driven by respondent No.1 as a result of which, Naresh Soni received injuries and succumbed thereto? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP 3. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately, the Tribunal while holding that it was respondent No.1 who was responsible for the accident, awarded compensation against the respondent No.2 and 3 (i.e. appellant) The prime argument set up by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal while passing the award held the responsibility of the driver of Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR-47A-5447, therefore, the appellant has been wrongly held liable. Having scrutinized the impugned award, and also the statement of Muna (PW2), it transpires that the Tribunal has not correctly referred the statement of Muna (PW2). The relevant portion of the impugned award is reproduced as under :- “PW-2 Munna has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW2/A and has stated that on 8.4.2007 he was going in the offending vehicle from Pillibhit to Delhi when they reached near village Baith turning, then Tata 407 HR-47A-5447 being driven by the respondent No.1 rashly and negligently came there and hit against their vehicle as a result of which the driver of Tata 407 died in accident......” When the aforesaid extract contained in the award was compared with the statement of Munna (PW2), then Tribunal was found to have made incorrect observations. Munna while appearing as PW-2, in his affidavit clearly stated that the respondent No.1 while driving the bus rashly and negligently struck against the four wheeler Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR-47A-5447, resultantly, Naresh Soni died at the spot. F.A.O. No.2273 of 2009 -3- *** Since the Tribunal did not properly incorporated the statement of Munna (PW2), therefore, the appellant could not press this court to record a finding that it was tempoo driver who was rash and negligent. On conspectus of the entire evidence, it transpires that the accident took place as a result of negligence on the part of the respondent No.1 Ram Krishan driver of the U.P. Roadways U.P., therefore, the Tribunal certainly returned the findings of fact regarding issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. As regards the quantum of compensation, even on the basis of the age and the income so assessed by the Tribunal, the compensation for which the claimants were entitled comes to more than what was assessed by the Tribunal. As such, no interference by way of decrease could be made in the quantum of compensation. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. September 07, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge