IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 75 of 2006 Date of decision: 10.10.2011 Nazakat Ali ..Appellant. Versus Bushir Ahmed & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the appellant: Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J(oral). 1. By means of this appeal, the appellant, who is the owner of bus No. HP-17-8786, has challenged the award dated 10.5.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur at Nahan. 2. Claimant Bashir Ahmed was travelling in bus No. HP-17-8786, owned by the appellant Nazakat Ali and driven by Mohammad Ilphan. He was travelling from Kala Amb towards Poanta Sahib side. According to the petitioner, bus No. HP-17-6285 owned by Bhajan Singh and driven by Surender Kumar came from the 2 opposite side i.e. from Nahan side and struck against bus No. HP.-17-8786 in a rash and negligent manner in which the arm of the claimant got severed. The claimant filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal held both the drivers equally responsible for the accident and apportioned the liability 50:50. Aggrieved by this award, Nazakat Ali has filed the appeal. 3. The main contention of Shri Imran Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the claimant in his testimony has not even whispered that the driver of bus No. HP-17-8786 was negligent. According to him, when both the drivers had taken opposite views it was only the claimant who could be deemed to be an independent witness and his version should have been believed. He, therefore, submits that the liability should be held only of owner, driver and insured of bus No.HP-17-6285. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate, submits that the finding of the learned Court below is correct inasmuch as on the basis of the evidence on record the learned Tribunal has given the finding that both the drivers are equally responsible. As far as the drivers are concerned, each has stated that he was totally innocent and the other driver alone was responsible for the accident. It is, however, important 3 to note that the stand of Mohammad Ilphan during the trial was that he had stopped his bus near Markanda bridge on a vacant place on the side of the road because the bus had developed some mechanical defect. His version is that the bus No.HP- 17-6285 driven by Surender Kumar came at a high speed and hit his stationary bus. 5. On the other hand, Shri Surender Kumar, while appearing in the witness box, stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Mohammad Ilphan. It is admitted that a criminal case has been lodged against Surender Kumar on the basis of FIR No. 59 dated 15.3.2002. This FIR has been exhibited as Ext. P-1 by the claimant and this FIR has been recorded on the report of Mohammad Ilphan. In this report it is not stated that the bus being driven by Mohammad Ilphan was standing on the side. Mohammad Ilphan while appearing in the Court had the temerity to state that he had not even got this report lodged. It is thus obvious that not much reliance can be placed on the statement of this witness who obviously does not believe in telling the truth. 6. Fortunately, in this case the map prepared by the police authorities has been exhibited as Ext.R-5. This map shows that the width of the road is 19 feet 4 2 inches. The bus being driven by Mohammad Ilphan at the place of impact was 8½ feet from the side of the road whereas the other bus was 10 feet from its side of the road. Therefore, both were virtually in the centre of the road. After the impact the bus of Mohammad Ilphan has been shown to be standing somewhere near the middle of the road though on the left side which again belies the version of Mohammad Ilphan that his bus was standing outside the road. A perusal of the map clearly indicates that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the drivers who both intended to cross the bridge before the other. Therefore, I find that the learned Tribunal was justified in holding both the drivers equally responsible. As such there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 7. In view of the fact that the amount has already been deposited by the appellant in the Registry, the same shall be paid to the claimant alongwith interest accrued thereupon by remitting the same to his bank account. October 10, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (vt) Judge