In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No.1753 of 1994 Date of decision: October 09, 2009 Mahender Singh .. Appellant Vs. Santosh Kumar and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J The order dated 17.5.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant/owner of Swaraz Mazda (converted into bus) (herein referred as 'the claimant'), has been assailed by way of the instant appeal. The factual matrix of the case is that on 14.5.1991 the claimant, a Commando in Haryana Commando Force along with other Commandos was travelling in the Government Bus bearing registration No.HR-05-4904 from Hisar to Narnaul via Charkhi Dadri and Rewari. When SI Varinder Singh tried to overtake the truck going ahead, the said bus in the process of overtaking struck against the Sheesham tree. Resultantly, the claimant including other occupants of the bus suffered injuries. As such, the claimant being the occupant of the bus, while finding fault with the truck driver i.e. respondent No.1, filed the claim petition against him and respondents No.2 and 3. The claim petition was contested by the respondents No.1 and 2. They, in their written statement, submitted that the allegations are totally false and frivolous. The truck was going at a normal speed, whereas, Varinder Singh was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. After the respondent No.1 gave passage to the bus and allowed it to over take, respondent No.1 struck the bus against the Sheesham tree, therefore, he was at fault. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- F.A.O. No.1753 of 1994 -2- *** 1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of the Truck by respondent No.1? If so, its effect?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from which of the respondents?OPP 3. Whether Insurance Company is absolved from its liability to pay the amount?OPP 4. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately the claimant lost the case. No doubt, the claimant, while appearing in the witness box, reiterated the facts stating that Varinder Singh SI, while driving the bus was proceeding from Charkhi Dadri towards Kanina, then a truck was spotted going ahead of him. Varinder Singh SI tried to overtake the truck. The truck driver suddenly brought the truck towards right in that situation Varinder SI hit the bus in the Sheesham tree, consequently the driver of the bus was at fault. The testimony of the claimant as regards the fault of the respondent No.1, is not plausible and reliable as from his statement no inference could be drawn that the truck was being driven at a high speed and in a rash manner. The truck was proceeding while it was only the bus driver who tried to overtake while accelerating the speed of the bus so as successfully overtake the truck. As such, the truck driver could not be held to be at fault. The testimony of Mahender Singh (PW1) is unsupported by any other evidence. No other evidence in the shape of photographs in order to prove the skid marks or the mechanical report has been brought on the record so as to show the actual situation of the bus or to prove the defect in the vehicles while it struck against the Sheesham tree. It has also come in evidence that no part of the truck struck against the bus. Had any part of the truck struck against the bus then it could be said that the truck driver had suddenly took the truck on the right side and struck against the bus, as a result of which the bus went towards the katcha berm and struck against the Sheesham tree. F.A.O. No.1753 of 1994 -3- *** Consequently, it could safely be held that findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are correct and liable to be affirmed. Resultantly, the appeal being unmerited is dismissed. October 09, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge