In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 2362 of 2009 Date of decision: December 21, 2009 State of Haryana and others .. Appellants Vs. Raj Dulari and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Partap Singh, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the appellants. Ms. Bhupinder Kaur, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. A.N. Jindal, J This appeal by the State of Haryana challenges the award dated 30.1.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.10,49,280/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants-respondents No.1 to 5, on account of the death of Inder Singh in a motor vehicular accident. Brief resume of facts is that on 26.7.2006, Inder Singh and some other police officials of the Haryana Police were going from Haryana Police Academy Madhuban to the firing range at village Raghunathpura, Narnaul, District Mohindergarh. They were travelling in mini bus bearing registration No.HR45-7657 belonging to the appellants and driven by Chander Bhan. At about 4.30 p.m. when the said mini bus while being driven by Chander Bhan reached near Mohindergarh, in the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration No.HR-38C-0428 came from the opposite side, Chander Bhan all of a sudden gave a cut, as a result of which the accident took place. At that time, Chander Bhan was in a drunken condition. Due to the accident, many police officials including Inder Singh lost their lives. FIR No.129 dated 26.7.2006 was lodged against Aabeed-respondent No.6. Claim petition was also preferred, which was contested by the respondents. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- F.A.O. No. 2362 of 2009 -2- *** 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HR38C-0428 and bus No.HR-45-7657 by respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 respectively and whether Inder Singh died on account of the injuries received by him in the said accident?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to receive and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable?OPR 4. Relief. In order to prove their case, the claimants examined HC Ajaib Singh (PW2), Babu Lal Ahlmad (PW3), Pawan Kumar (PW4), HC Rakesh Kumar (PW5) and the claimant himself appeared as PW-1, besides tendering into evidence salary certificate Ex.P1, certified copy of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C Ex.P2, postmortem report Ex.P3 and copy of the award dated 6.8.2008 Ex.PX. To the contrary, the respondents examined Chander Bhan (RW1), Sapptar Singh (RW2) besides tendering into evidence photo copy of the receipts Ex.R1, copy of the voucher Ex.R2, copy of the receipt Ex.R3 and copy of the statement of Pawan Kumar Ex.R4. Ultimately, the claim petition was partly accepted in the aforesaid terms against the appellant and the respondent No.8. Hence this appeal. It is not disputed that the accident had occurred on 26.7.2006 between mini bus bearing registration No.HR-45-7657 which was being driven by Constable Chander Bhan and the truck bearing registration No.HR-38C-0428 driven by Aabeed respondent No.6. The sole question to be determined in this case is regarding rashness and negligence. The case of the claimants is that Chander Bhan was driving the mini bus in a rash and negligent manner and also Aabeed respondent No.6 was driving his truck bearing registration No.HR-38C-0428 in a rash and negligent manner. In order to substantiate their claim, the claimants have drawn my attention towards copy of the judgment dated 6.8.2008 (Ex.PX) passed by Mr. L.N. F.A.O. No. 2362 of 2009 -3- *** Jindal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra in MACT Case No.194 of 2006, titled as Raj Bala and others vs. State of Haryana and others, in which the Tribunal observed that mere fact that Aabeed was facing trial and FIR was also registered against him would be of no consequence. In the said judgment, while deciding issue No.1, the Tribunal had specifically observed that the accident speaks for itself and tells its own tale. The sketch and the manner of accident would be that the truck struck against the bus on its left side in between the front and rear tyres, meaning thereby that the bus was on the right side and the left side of the bus was facing the truck. The version of the claimants seems to the correct. The bus was overtaking another bus going ahead of it and the truck was coming from the opposite side. When the bus driver realized that he could not overtake the other bus, he immediately gave cut to his bus, resulting into hitting of the truck into left side of the bus. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent upon the judgment delivered in case Pushpabaj Parshottam Udeshi and others vs. M/s Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1735, wherein the maxim of res ipsa loquitur has been dealt with along with its requirement. It has been observed by this Court in case Kiran and others vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and others 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 486 that on the strength of evidence led in the case, the Tribunal has to decide the matter. The FIR is not lodged on the solemn affirmation and the same could not be a substitute for the evidence giving exhaustive version of the accident. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has discussed the same taking note of all the aspects including the age, occupation, dependency and the multiplier. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. December 21, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge