IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4805 of 2010 (O/M) Date of Decision : August 18, 2010. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ....... Appellant Versus Master Lucky and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Anil Kumar Gahlawat, Advocate, for the appellant. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Through the present appeal, challenge has been posed to the Order dated 11.03.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, (in short ‘the Tribunal’), vide which the claim petition preferred by Master Lucky, aged 5 years through his father Harish Kumar, has been allowed, awarding him compensation of Rs. 1,70,500/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, on account of injury suffered by him in the vehicular accident, which was a bus, bearing registration No. RJ-13P-0012, driven by Amarjeet/respondent No. 2 herein, which was owned by the appellant. Counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant has not been able to establish the factum of accident having taken place with the offending vehicle. He contends that the Tribunal is blowing hot and cold in the same breath. At one place, it has accepted the testimony of Amarjeet, who was driver of the offending vehicle, who appeared as RW1 and deposed with regard to the factum of compromise having been entered into between him and Harish Kumar, father of the claimant, while on the other, the Tribunal has held FAO No. 4805 of 2010 (O/M) -2- that the receipt (Ex.R-1), which was produced by RW-1/Amarjeet pertaining to the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, which was paid to Harish Kumar, father of the claimant, in pursuance of and in accordance with the compromise, has not been taken into consideration, because the original receipt was not produced. He on this basis contends that the finding regarding the fixing of the responsibility of the appellant to make the payment of compensation amount cannot be sustained. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the records of the case. The factum of the accident is not only proved from the statement of Jora Singh, MMHC, who appeared as PW-1 and brought copy of DDR bearing No. 42, copy of which is Ex.P-1, but also the compromise which has been admitted to have been entered into between the father of the claimant, namely, Harish Kumar with Amarjeet, driver of the vehicle. In the light of the factum of compromise having been entered into, which was pleaded and asserted by Amarjeet himself, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident having taken place with the vehicle, stands itself proved and did not require further proof on this aspect as it was not in dispute, therefore, the contention of counsel for the appellant that the accident is not proved to have taken place with the vehicle of which it is owner, cannot be accepted as it has not been disputed or denied that the said vehicle was being driven by Amarjeet on the day when the accident is alleged to have taken place. The next contention of counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not accepted the compromise in toto, but has partially accepted a part thereof, where fact of the accident having taken place has been mentioned, but has disbelieved the other part, where amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the father of the claimant, also does not have any basis. The factum of FAO No. 4805 of 2010 (O/M) -3- compromise having been effected between the parties was admitted by RW- 1/Amarjeet, driver of the vehicle, but to prove the payment of Rs. 25,000/- in pursuance of the compromise was depending upon the receipt, photocopy whereof was produced before the Tribunal. Because the said document was not proved in accordance with law, the learned Tribunal has rightly not accepted the same as the original document was not produced before it. In view of the above, the contention raised by counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. No other argument has been raised by the counsel before this Court. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 18, 2010. sjks.