JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J.(Oral)--This appeal impugns an award of compensation dated 12.07.2018 in claim petition numbered as MACT No. 357412/16 & 357406/16. The facts of the case are that on 18.04.2010, at about 9:30 p.m., a Tavera car, bearing Registration No. HR-67-3645, struck a motor-cycle bearing no. PB-11-AB-0752, on which three persons were riding. They all suffered injuries, one Rashid Ahmed succumbed to injuries on 19.04.2010, the other two injured persons survived. An FIR bearing no. 89/2010 was registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Punjab for offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 338, 427, 304A IPC. The impugned order found the appellant's vehicle to be the cause of the accident.

2. According to the testimony of the parties, including that of one of the injured viz. Naseem Ahmed, they were returning from a mosque after offering their prayers, on the aforesaid date and time, they were hit from behind by the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner; because of the violent impact, the rider sustained major injuries while Rashid was mortally wounded and later succumbed to his injuries.

3. It is the appellant's case that his vehicle was not involved in the accident but by a strange quirk of fate, it had struck against an electric pole, earlier, at some distance on another road. There is, however, no proof of the earlier accident against an electric pole. Much stress is laid on the fact that the motor-cycle of the claimants was never seized. However, the Court would note that the injured persons i.e. Nasim Ahmed and Mohd. Irfan had both deposed that the offending vehicle was the Tavera bearing No. HR-67-3645. Furthermore, the police had seized the offending vehicle.

4. The impugned order has dealt with this issue as under:

"10. Now coming to the next limb of arguments as to whether there is any evidence to show that the accident in question had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of respondent no.1. In this regard, the testimony of PW Nasim Ahmed and respondent No.1 are relevant.

(i). Before analysing the testimony of above said witnesses, it is pertinent to state that the police had filed the chargesheet against the respondent no.1 and he was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 279/337/338/304A IPC by the court of Ld. Judicial, Magistrate-I Class, Patiala vide judgment dated 14.10.2013. This fact is admitted by respondent no.1 In his cross-examination. He also testified that he did not challenge the said judgment. This itself shows that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 and it further establishes that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle. Apart from that PW1 Nasim Ahmed in his examination-in-chief categorically deposed that when they reached near Fatak-23, Patiala, offending vehicle came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit their motor cycle from back side. Consequently, they fell down and sustained injuries. Though PW1 was cross-examined at length, but nothing could be extracted which may help the respondents to show that no accident was caused by the offending vehicle.

(ii). From the testimony of PW1 Nasim Ahmed, it is clear that the offending vehicle hit the motor cycle from back side. This establishes that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1.

11. Now I proceed to analysis the testimony of PW1 Nasim Ahmed to ascertain as to whether there was any contributory negligence on his part or not?

(i). PW1 Nasim Ahmed in his cross-examination admitted that three persons were riding on the motor cycle and he was driving the motor cycle while other two were pillion riders. Though he was wearing helmet, but other two where not wearing helmet. He also admitted that the motor cycle was being driven by him without having a valid insurance.

(ii). Needless to say that riding of three persons on the motor cycle is in violation