JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. As per the report of the Registry, respondents no.1 to 5 have been served. None has appeared on behalf of respondents no.1 to 5.

CM-17641-CII-2025

1. Present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 306 days in filing the accompanying application for restoration of appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, present application is allowed and the delay of 306 days in filing the accompanying application for restoration of appeal is hereby condoned.

CM-17642-CII-2025

1. This is an application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 27.09.2024.

2. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the order dated 27.09.2024 is recalled and the main appeal is ordered to be restored to its original number.

FAO-2411-1999

1. The owner of the offending bus-Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation, Delux Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan through its Managing Director has filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 04.03.1999 vide which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.4,23,200/- along with interest as compensation on account of death of Jan Mohammad, the husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondents no.2 to 5, which was caused in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 12.07.1998.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case, the fault of the bus, which was in the ownership of the present appellant, was not there as the said bus was being driven at a very slow speed and it was the Tata Sumo, which was rashly and negligent being driven, that had hit the cyclist-Jan Mohammad and it is on account of the said act of the driver of the Tata Sumo that Jan Mohammad died in the accident. It is submitted that it was only on humanitarian ground that the driver of the bus owned by the appellant took Jan Mohammad to the Civil Hospital, Ambala. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the appellant could not be held responsible to pay the compensation which had been awarded by the Tribunal and it is the owner and driver of the Tata Sumo who should be held responsible. It is fairly submitted before this Court that there is no interim order in favour of the appellant and thus, the compensation has been paid to the claimants.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant and has perused the paper book and is of the opinion that the present appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed and the award dated 04.03.1999 is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld.

4. It was the case of the claimants in the claim petition that the deceased-Jan Mohammad on 12.07.1998 after doing his work in village Babyal was going to his village Mohara on a bicycle and was being followed by his son Iqbal Mohammad, who was on a separate bicycle, and at about 06:30 pm when both the said cyclists reached within the area of village Mohra on Ambala-Delhi road i.e., G. T. Road, a bus bearing no. RJ- 14P-7782, which was being driven by Jagtar Singh (respondent no.6) and was owned by the present appellant, came from behind and in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing any horn hit Jan Mohammad, who was at a distance of 30/40 steps from Iqbal Mohammad and as a result of the accident, the said Jan Mohammad suffered multiple injuries on his person and thereafter he was taken to the hospital but he succumbed to his injuries and died. It was further the case of the claimants that the accident had been caused by Jagtar Singh, the driver of the bus and it was on account of his rash and negligent driving, Jan Mohammad sustained injuries in the accident and died. It was further stated that the said Jan Mohammad was 49 years of age and was working as a mason and was earning Rs.7000/-