FAO No.7192 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.7192 of 2010 Date of Decision. 24.01.2011 Lakhwinder Singh son of Shri Sukhmander Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Pawan Kumar aged about 58 years son of Shri Hari Krishan Dass resident of House No.403, Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda .....Respondent Present: Mr. H.S. Jalal, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the owner and driver of the vehicle, which was a maruti van alleged to have been involved in the accident. The accident was said to have taken place on 30.04.2009 and the FIR had been lodged on the following day. The contention in defence was that the vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. In the manner of appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal relied on the fact that the criminal case had been registered; that even apart from the claimant, yet another witness had spoken about his personal knowledge about the involvement of the vehicle. The Tribunal referred to the fact that even a suggestion to the claimant's witness was strange that there had been a compromise between the parties and that the claimant had already stated before the FAO No.7192 of 2010 -2- police station that he will not pursue for any recoveries against the respondents. The Tribunal found that if there had been such a compromise, when the claimant was contending that this particular vehicle was involved and the respondents were using the said compromise for denial, the fact that the said compromise was not even produced before the Court was itself a circumstance to say that the vehicle had been involved. It was a case of parties affirming the involvement of the vehicle and respondents saying that their vehicle had not been involved. The Tribunal sifted evidence and took the view that the vehicle had been involved. 2. I find even that the respondents have been guilty of every violation that is possible. It has been contended by the owner that the vehicle was being run for transporting the teachers and school students and it is not seen whether they had been such a permit to use as a service vehicle. Even the driving licence had not been produced in court. The vehicle itself was not insured and it had been put on road without even a third party insurance which is compulsory. The violations are actionable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the relevant rules. 3. The Tribunal has considered all the issues properly and even as regards the compensation it is only modest. The claimant has undergone a surgery and there had been an implant and the fracture reduced through plates and screws. The medical bills that had been produced before the Tribunal had totalled to Rs.1,25,000/-, the Tribunal added Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering and has granted compensation at Rs.1,50,000/-. I do not even find that there is any error as regards the FAO No.7192 of 2010 -3- quantum of compensation. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 24, 2011 Pankaj*