IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

FAO No. 3 of 2012.

Date of Decision: 22.2.2012.

Uttar Pradesh Roadways Transport Corporation

.... Appellant

Versus

Harbiri & others

.... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate,

for the appellants.

NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL)

This appeal has been filed by Uttar Pradesh

Roadways Transport Corporation owner of offending bus No. UP-81-

N-9912 against the Award dated September 23^rd, 2011 passed by

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), Palwal.

2.

On November 23^rd, 2009 Omkar Singh (died

natural death during pendency of claim application), along with

Joginder Singh was going in a vehicle No. HK-30-F-0381. When he

reached near Lambardar Hotel village Chandhat, bus bearing No.

UP-81-N-9912 driven by Surinder Kumar Paliwal at a fast speed and

in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and

struck against the vehicle of Omkar Singh. Omkar Singh suffered

multiple injuries. His both legs were fractured. The driver of the bus

managed his escape leaving bus on the spot. The injured was taken

to Dhariwal Nursing Home, Palwal. He was operated upon. Rods

were inserted in both of his legs. He became 70% disabled as

assessed by the Board of Doctors of General Hospital, Palwal vide

certificate (Mark-A).

3.

He filed claim application under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation of Rs.12 lacs on account of

injuries suffered by him in the road accident. The Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- under the following heads:-

1. Medical expenses

Rs.39,000/-

2. Pain & sufferings

Rs.50,000/-

3. Attendant charges

Rs.4500/-

FAO No. 3 of 2012

(2)

4. Nutritious diet

Rs.4500/-

5. Loss of income

Rs.10,800/-

6. Permanent disability

Rs.1,70,000/-

7. Transportation charges

Rs.2000/-

__________________

Total

Rs.2,80,000/-

__________________

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that

Omkar Singh was drunk at the time of accident so, the driver of the

bus should not have been held negligent for causing the accident

and as such, the appellant was not liable to pay the amount of

compensation. It was also contended that FIR (Exhibit P-1) was

registered against the driver of the bus after two days of the

occurrence which also creates dent on the story put forth by Omkar

Singh.

5.

There is no evidence on record that Omkar Singh

was drunk at the time of accident. The appellant and the driver of the

bus did not plead so in their Written-statements. Joginder Singh eye

witness (PW-2) deposed before the Tribunal that the accident

occurred on account of negligent driving of the bus by Surinder

Kumar Paliwal. His statement is corroborated by the contents of FIR

(Exhibits). He was cross-examined by the counsel for the appellant

and the driver of the bus but nothing material could be elicited to dis-

believe his testimony. In view of this, it is unhesitatingly proved that

the accident occurred on account of negligent driving of the bus. One

also cannot lose sight of the fact that after leaving the bus on the

spot, its driver escaped. Had he been not negligent, he would not

have done so.

6.

So far as the delay of two days in registration of

the FIR is concerned, it can be taken into consideration but not in the

present case because the factum of accident has been admitted by

the respondents. Rather, Surinder Kumar Paliwal had moved an

application to the SHO, Police Station Chadhar, District Palwal that

FAO No. 3 of 2012.

(3)

the accident had taken place with his bus but the same was on

account of negligence of Omkar Singh. Indisputably, Surinder Kumar

Paliwal was challaned for causing this accident. That is corrborative

piece of evidence. In this view of the matter, the delay in lodging the

FIR is of no consequence.

7.

For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is meritless

and is dismissed.

2