IN THE 218 State of Haryana a Smt. Digamberi D CORAM: HON'B Present: Ms. Gee *** PARMOD GOYA 1. Present Nos.2, 3 and 4 (hereinafter referr dated 03.02.2000 caused accident da respondent No. negligence, which “1. Whe 9/10 km negligen Sareen 2. Learned witness, who was that it is respond concluded issue No.1, who appear and plea was taken N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH yana and Others versus beri Devi and Others ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD Geeta Rani, AAG, Haryana. GOYAL, J. (ORAL) resent appeal has been preferred by 4 before the Motor Accident referred to as ‘Tribunal’) being agg .2000 vide which it was held that bu dated 26.10.1997 by rash and negl No.1. The learned Tribunal had which is reproduced as under:- Whether the accident in question kms from Jagadhri on Jagadhri- ligent driving of bus No.HR-37 een Kumar?OPP” earned Tribunal after considering was travelling in the bus at the time espondent No.1 who is facing trial No.1 in favour of claimants. T appeared as RW-1 was disbelieved as taken at the belated stage. -1- NJAB & HARYANA ARH FAO-1202-2000 Date of decision:17.11.2025 ...Appellants ...Respondents MOD GOYAL by appellants i.e. respondent Claims Tribunal, Ambala aggrieved by impugned order bus owned by appellants had negligent driving on the part of had framed issue regarding tion took place on 26.10.1997, -Ambala road due to rash or 37-4420 by respondent No.1 evidence of PW2-injured time of accident as well as fact trial for causing the accident The evidence of respondent as same was uncorroborated SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.19 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1202-2000 3. On cons by learned Tribuna hand, injured-clai accident as was as the accident. In claimant i.e. PW negligent driving examination, howe as to doubt his te FIR, claim petiti respondent No.1 not on account of failure as right fro to said reasons. R normal speed of account of his ra failure which is accident. Howeve the Tribunal, no offending vehicle 4. It is wo against responden was filed against for accident due has not made any criminal case on 2000 consideration, I do not find any err ribunal while deciding issue No.1 in claimant appeared as PW-2 and asserted by him at the time of lod FIR as well as in his statement PW-2 had clearly stated that accid riving of respondent No.1 alone. He however, nothing from cross-examin testimony. In order to counter as petition as well as while appear No.1 had duly appeared and claimed of rash and negligent driving but front wheel got jammed and brake Respondent No.1 claimed that he of 50-55 k.ms. per hour and tha rash and negligent driving but an act of God and therefore he owever, apart from oral statement ma no material has been placed by res ehicle had suffered any mechanical issu worth noting that FIR No.281 dat ondent No.1 on the same day. Matte ainst respondent No.1 and it is respon to his rash and negligent driving. any complaint or protest against the ground of mechanical failure -2- error in the conclusion drawn in favour of claimants. On one has asserted the manner of lodging FIR immediately after ement before the Court, injured- accident was result of rash and He was put to detailed cross- examination could be highlighted assertions made by PW-2 in appearing before the Tribunal, aimed that accident had occurred but on account of mechanical brakes could not be applied due he was driving the vehicle at that the accident was not on but on account of mechanical is not liable for causing the made for the first time before respondents to show that the issues at the time of accident. dated 26.10.1997 was lodged Matter was investigated, challan respondent No.1, who faced trial iving. However, respondent No.1 gainst his alleged implication in ailure of the bus. It was only after SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.19 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1202-2000 filing of claim pe failure. However by respondents mechanical report front wheel has be 5. The lear of PW-2-injured/e the day of acciden had narrated the any corroboration appeal is made out 17.11.2025 Sunil Chander Whether Whether re 2000 petition respondent No.1 has tak ever except for self-serving oral asser to show that bus had suffered report immediately after accident been placed on record. learned Tribunal has, therefore, rig jured/eye witness who had narrated th ccident itself as against evidence of the self-serving story before the Tr ration to the facts stated by him. No gr out. Appeal is accordingly dismisse ther speaking/reasoned : ther reportable : -3- taken ground of mechanical assertions, no evidence was led ffered mechanical failure as no regarding jamming of right rightly accepted the evidence the manner of occurrence on of RW1-respondent No.1, who Tribunal without there being ground to interfere in present ismissed. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.19 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document