Kiran Bala and Others vs Shokat Ali and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is claimants'' appeal challenging the award dated 19.05.2010 vide which learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court) Ropar (for short ''the Tribunal'') has dismissed the claim petition. The claim petition was brought by the dependents of Satish Kumar on his death that occurred in a road side accident having taken place on 28.01.2009. On 28.01.2009 Satish Kumar was going towards Civil Hospital Una on Una Hamirpur road. Suddenly a bus, which was driven by respondent No. 1, came from the side of Una, in a rash and negligent manner. No horn was blown from the vehicle. It had hit the motorcycle of the deceased from behind bringing Satish Kumar on the road. He suffered injuries on his head and other parts of the body and died at the spot. The deceased was working as charge hand mason in the Arab Tech. Company at Dubai (UAE) and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 20,000/-. Compensation in a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- is claimed by the claimants.

Respondents No. 1 and 2 have denied the very accident to have ever occurred. They have denied the other averments of the claimants and have denied the claimants to deserve a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation.

Learned Tribunal found under issue No. 1 that the deceased himself was negligent in driving his motorcycle, which he had struck at the back of the bus in question. Consequently, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

Learned counsel for the appellants took me through the contents of para No. 11 of the award. This paragraph of the award contains the reasons of learned Tribunal for rejecting the evidence of the claimants on issue No. 1. Learned counsel for the appellants was then asked as to how he challenges these observations of learned Tribunal and he humbly replied in negative.

A perusal of the contents of para No. 11 of the award clearly shows that the reasons given by learned Tribunal for holding that the accident is not an outcome of rash and negligent driving of bus by respondent No. 1 and that the accident has been an outcome of negligence in driving the motorcycle by the deceased himself are really unexceptional.

The police with whom the case was got registered recorded the statements of the passengers travelling in the bus. On their statements it was the view of the police that the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased himself, who struck his motorcycle in the back portion of the bus in question. On their statements, the police submitted an untraced report in the matter of the FIR and the complainant appeared before the Magistrate and got recorded his statement of no objection to the same.

The viscera of the deceased was sent for chemical analysis arid his blood was found to have 116.43 mg% of alcohol in the same. There was evidence of so many eye witnesses of the occurrence to the effect that the deceased had himself hit the bus at its back and he himself was negligent in driving the motorcycle. In these circumstances there cannot be any reason to say that the finding of learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 is liable to be interfered with. Hence, finding no reason to interfere with the finding of learned Tribunal on issue No. 1, I affirm the said finding. Consequently, the appeal is found to have no merit and is dismissed.