FAO No. 2558 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2558 of 2008 Date of decision January 24, 2011 Wazir Singh and another ....... Appellants Versus Kamlesh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vikram Singh , Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG., Haryana. Mr. Subhash Goel, Advocate for respondent No.6. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is at the instance of the owner and driver of the jeep which had been wholly found responsible for the accident. While holding the owner and the driver responsible and exonerating the driver of the bus who had caused the accident, the Tribunal purported to have relied on the evidence of PW-2, an eye witness who has submitted in the cross examination that the driver of the jeep was responsible for the FAO No. 2558 of 2008 2 accident. Learned counsel states that this was a factual mistake committed by the Tribunal and produced before me the evidence of PW-2 which is to the effect inter alia,“ it is wrong to suggest that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.”. The accident had taken place at the time when the jeep was coming from the petrol pump going on the main road dashed against the jeep and killing a passenger in the jeep. Learned counsel for the State would contend that the bus was going on the main road and PW-2 himself had admitted that the bus was going on the correct side of the road. According to him the jeep coming from the petrol pump must have slowed down allowing the vehicle to come on the main road and got into the main road. Even when I will definitely find a person coming on the main road ought to exercise caution and allow the on going vehicle to pass through, I will not take the bald statement that the driver going on the main road can come without minding whether there was any vehicle coming from any cut road or a possibility of coming out of the petrol pump. Normally all petrol pumps carry large hoardings and indications for location of petrol pump and the driver of the bus going on the main road ought to apply equally sufficient caution while approaching such places. Unless the driver of the bus himself had driven the vehicle at a fast speed a collision could not have resulted in turning the jeep turtle and killing a person. I would place the responsibility of the accident on both the vehicles and apportion the liability between the owner of the jeep and the owner of the bus as 50:50. The owner of the bus is made liable for 50% and it will also obtain right of indemnity to the extent to which the insurance policy makes cover. It shall be at the liberty of the claimants to enforce the award against any of the tort feasors. If the owner of the jeep has already paid the amount as per the award, he will have the right of recovery of 50% from the owner of the bus and the insurer jointly and severally. I clarify that the owner of the jeep FAO No. 2558 of 2008 3 is vicariously liable for the negligent act of the driver. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 24, 2011 archana