FAO No.1666 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1666 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 17.02.2011 Om Parkash son of Wasawa Ram resident of village Ahal Bodla Police Station Sadar Fazilka owner of the Bus No.PB29G 9847 ......Appellant Versus Gurjant Singh and another .....Respondents Present: Ms. Rupinder K. Thind, Advocate for the appellant. 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 only issue, which is alleged in this appeal, is that in the DDR recorded soon after the accident, the claimant had stated that the accident was inevitable due to bursting of the tyre. It appears that the FIR had been registered after two months attributing the negligence to the driver. The Tribunal found the negligence as established and awarded compensation. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would state that no negligence could be attributed and placed heavy reliance on the entry in the DDR. In my view, it will not be merely an act of negligence of the driver but resultant to lack of proper upkeep of the tyre when the tyre bursts. That should be taken as making the owner responsible for a claim arising out of such an accident. There is large volume of case law on the subject that tyre burst is never inevitable. It is an FAO No.1666 of 2011 (O&M) -2- outcome of negligent upkeep of the tyre. 3. The award of compensation against the appellant under the circumstances is justified and there is no scope for interference. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 17, 2011 Pankaj*