FAO No.5741 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5741 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 03.08.2011 The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another .......Appellants Versus Paramjit Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) CM No.25423 of 2010 CM allowed. Delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.5741 of 2010 The appellant-Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, is in appeal against the Award dated 21.4.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur. Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the entire record. 1 FAO No.5741 of 2010 The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that while passing the impugned Award, the learned Tribunal erred in ignoring the statement of the driver, Chamkot Singh, RW1, holding that the same was not corroborated by any other witness. A perusal of the record would reveal that the FIR was registered against the driver-Chamkot Singh, at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana. On the other hand, there is nothing on record to establish that the driver moved any representation to the higher authorities alleging his false implication in the case. Therefore, in the absence of any positive proof to the contrary, the version put forth by the claimants must stand. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that deceased Bhupinder Kaur died due to her own negligence and also the negligence of the driver of the Mini Bus. However, the appellant has miserably failed to substantiate the fact of alleged involvement of the Mini Bus in the accident, which appears to be an afterthought. Lastly, the learned counsel has argued on the point of quantum, stating it to be on the higher side. From the record, it is made out that the deceased was about 45 years of age and an income tax assessee. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5, the income tax returns of the deceased prove the income of the deceased. The appellant could not rebut this documentary evidence by leading any cogent evidence. In this view of the matter, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal seems just and appropriate. 2 FAO No.5741 of 2010 In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 03.08.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 3