FAO No.2597 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2597 of 2001 Date of Decision. 27.08.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its Regional Office at Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Asstt. Manager ......Appellant Versus Surinderjit Kaur wife of late Jasbir Singh and others .....Respondents 2. FAO No.2598 of 2001 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its Regional Office at Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Asstt. Manager ......Appellant Versus Jagir Kaur wife of Gurcharan Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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 two appeals arise out of the same accident for death of the same person, one at the instance of the mother and another at the instance of the widow and children, that had been occasioned by the insured's tanker hitting the scooter and the pillion rider in the scooter getting thrown off and coming under the wheels of yet another truck which was coming alongside about the same time. FAO No.2597 of 2001 -2- Although the claimants stated that the truck driver and the driver of the tanker were both responsible for the accident, the eye-witness's account was, however, different. PW-2 gave evidence to the effect that the driver came from the petrol pump without noticing the scooter with the pillion rider travelling on the main road and hit against the scooter. The deceased got crushed under the truck wheel only by the fact that he got thrown off the scooter by the impact of the collision that the scooter had with the tanker. Before the Tribunal, both the driver of the truck and the tanker were not examined. 2. The Tribunal on consideration of all the facts and with particular reference to the evidence of PW-2, the eye witness, said that the accident was the result of the negligent driving of the driver of the tanker only and made the appellant liable for the claim arising out of the accident. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the claimants' case was that both the vehicles were responsible and therefore, when both the driver did not give evidence, the Tribunal ought to have found both the vehicles as responsible for the accident. I am afraid, I cannot accept such an argument, for a claimant, who is not himself an eye-witness collects information and verifies, averment made on the basis of information that he has collected. It may turn out that the person who is an eye-witness refers to the facts in the manner in which it had taken place. In this case, one of the claimants, who was the injured has given a categorical statement that the accident took place only due the negligence of the driver of the tanker. I would, FAO No.2597 of 2001 -3- therefore, uphold the finding of the Tribunal and subject the award to no intervention in appeal. 3. The awards passed by the Tribunal are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 27, 2010 Pankaj*