FAO No.131 of 2008(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.131 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : December 17, 2009 Manjit Kaur and others ... Appellants VERSUS Nirmaljit Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.N.K.Manchanda, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.K.S.Bhullar, Advocate for respondent No.1. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Challenge in this appeal, is to the award dated 16.8.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot, dismissing the claim petition, preferred by the claimants – appellants (herein referred as `the claimants'). The version of the claimants as put forth in the claim petition is that on 25.11.2006, Baldev Singh (deceased) and his brother Surjit Singh were going from village Panj Grain Kalan to Kotkapura by Punjab Roadways bus bearing Reg.No.PB-12C-9378 (herein referred as `the offending bus'). When the offending bus reached near the bus stand Kotkapura, Surjit Singh got down at the entry gate of the bus stand, while FAO No.131 of 2008(O&M) [ 2 ] Baldev Singh (deceased) alighted from the bus, inside the bus stand after it was stopped. However, while reversing the said bus in rash and negligent manner, driver Nirmaljit Singh – respondent No.1 crushed the deceased Baldev Singh under its rear tyres and fled away from the spot. Consequently, a criminal case was registered against him. As an aftermath of the accident, the claim petition was filed, which was contested by the respondents by filing the written statement, wherein, even the factum of the accident having taken place with the offending bus was denied. On pleadings of the parties, five issues were framed. The prime question involved in the case is regarding rashness and negligence of the driver. The relevant issue in this regard is reproduced as under:- “(1) Whether on 25.11.2006 at about 6.45 PM, Baldev Singh son of Sapura Singh had died on account of his accident with the offending bus bearing registration No.PB-12C-9378 being driven by the respondent No.1 rashly and negligently? OPP (2) to (5) ..... .... ...” To prove the aforesaid issue, the onus was upon the claimants, for which they examined two witnesses; one Manjit Kaur (PW1), who is the widow of Baldev Singh and the other one is Surjit Singh (PW2), brother of the deceased, the alleged eye-witness of the occurrence. Both these witnesses filed their affidavits Ex.P1 and P2, respectively. In her affidavit, Manjit Kaur stated that she is not an eye-witness of the occurrence, but while being cross-examined, she took a somersault and stated that the FAO No.131 of 2008(O&M) [ 3 ] accident had taken place in her presence with a Punjab Roadways bus. Now, we discuss the evidence of Surjit Singh (PW2), who is brother of the deceased and who has narrated the alleged occurrence in his affidavit (Ex.P2). During cross-examination, he stated that he reached the bus stand at about 6.45 PM and reached the place of occurrence about 10 minutes after the accident. Besides, copy of the post mortem report (Ex.P3) and copy of the First Information Report (Ex.P4) were also tendered into evidence. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and also after going through the record, the version set up by the claimants appears to be false. The evidence reflects that none of the witnesses of the claimants was present at the time of occurrence. Had the accident really taken place in the manner, as narrated by the claimants, then certainly some public person, not related to the deceased, must have come forward to help them and depose about the occurrence, but it is not such a case. The evidence of Manjit Kaur (PW1) is contradictory in itself, as in her affidavit, she denied being an eye-witness to the occurrence, but it appears that she was made to say about having seen the incident just to achieve the claim. Similarly, Surjit Singh (PW2) is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. He came ten minutes after the accident. All this goes to show that onus to prove issue No.1 does not stand discharged and shifted. Even otherwise, when two brothers are travelling together, it is expected that they both shall get down together and not in the manner as in the present case; one (Surjit Singh) got down at the entry gate of the bus stand, where, FAO No.131 of 2008(O&M) [ 4 ] the bus had allegedly stopped and the other (Baldev Singh – deceased) inside the Bus Stand. As such, presence of Surjit Singh at the time of occurrence becomes doubtful. Resultantly, the finding returned by the Tribunal on the afore- quoted issue stand affirmed. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. December 17, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE