KAMALJIT SINGH Vs. JATINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 4. 12. 1991 whereby a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') filed by the appellants has been dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar.

(2.) HAKAM Singh, aged 45 years, employed as an Assistant in the Punjab Milkfed at Milk Plant, Mohali, was going from Mohali to Kharar on 30. 11. 1990 at about 6. 00 p. m. on the Chandigarh-Kharar Road. When he was near village Ballo Majra Link Road, a bus bearing registration No. HP 36-0302 owned by Himachal Roadways Transport Corporation while dying to overtake another bus of Punjab Roadways,. struck against the scooter of Hakam Singh. The bus was being driven at a very fast speed in a negligent manner at the time of the accident. As a result, Hakam Singh received multiple injuries and died on the spot. At the time of death the deceased was drawing salary to the tune of Rs. 3249. 80 per month besides earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from dairy work at Kharar. With the above averments, the appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Act claiming compensation on account of death of Hakam Singh. The claim as made by them was contested by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:

(3.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the finding recorded under issue No. 1 only. Learned counsel for the appellants while seriously assailing the finding recorded under issue No. 1 submitted that in order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 1 resulting in the death of Hakam Singh, the appellants had examined two eyewitnesses, namely, Tarlochan Singh as PW 1 and Baldev Singh as PW 4, but their evidence has been wrongly thrown away by the learned Tribunal. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the onus to prove issue No. 1 was on the appellants and they have failed to discharge the same. He further submitted that the statement of the driver of the offending bus should be given due weight and should not be brushed aside simply because he is supposed to depose in his own favour.