FAO No. 1614 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 1614 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.3.2010 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another ... Appellants vs Jagdish Lal and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. This appeal has been filed by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation against the award dated 3.11.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) whereby a sum of Rs. 4,74,000/- has been awarded to the claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 6 to be paid by the appellants and respondent no. 7 jointly and severally. Along with appeal, application seeking condonation of delay of 44 days in filing the appeal has also been filed. Briefly the facts are that on 19.9.2008, Krishna Devi (since deceased) along with her husband and two minor children, was going from Village Surajgarh to Village Sabika on motorcycle make Suzuki bearing registration No. HR-02D-1695. The motorcycle was being driven by respondent no. 1 at a moderate speed. At about 3.00 p.m., when they reached red light point, Ladwa Chowk, G. T. Road, Shahbad and crossing the road after getting green signal and had almost crossed the road leading from Ambala to Kurukshetra, a Punjab Roadways bus bearing No. PB-65G- 8263, driven by respondent no. 7, at a high speed, came from Ambala side and hit the motorcycle. Due to this, they fell down on the road. The driver sped the bus away from the spot. Krishna Devi received serious injuries and died on the way to the hospital. Criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus. Claim petition filed by the husband of deceased was allowed. Compensation of Rs. 4,74,000/- was assessed, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. FAO No. 1614 of 2010 -2- Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that respondent no. 1 has to be held responsible for negligent driving as he was driving the motorcycle while carrying three persons. In any case, it was a case of contributory negligence. He further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to record any definite finding regarding liability of owner and driver, namely, the percentage of compensation which is to be shared by both the parties. It was prayed that finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the paper-book, I find no merit in the present appeal. The learned Tribunal while recording the finding with regard to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus has considered the affidavit of Jagdish Lal, husband of the deceased, who was one of the persons involved in the accident. Nothing was pointed out from his cross-examination which could put a dent on his testimony. The best evidence available with the appellants to controvert the claim of the claimants was the driver of the bus, who had even not appeared before the Tribunal. It is also not the case of the appellants that the claimants had any grudge against the driver of the bus and he has been falsely implicated in this case. As far as the contention regarding recording of finding qua sharing of compensation between the owner and driver is concerned, once the court has recorded that both owner and driver would be liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally, no further details were required to be recorded. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 29.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge