IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.618 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision:03.12.2010 Balbir Singh ....Appellant versus Shri Baldev Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Manisha Setia, Advocate, for Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr. N.K.Khosla, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 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 against an award of dismissal of the claim for compensation where the claimant contended that he had been hit by a motorcyclist having registration No.HR-05-5771. It appears that a statement had been recorded by the police but the case was filed by the claimant on a plea that the police had not recorded the statement properly and made it appear as though that he was blinded by lights by a motorcyclist coming on the opposite direction, he drove to the left hand side extreme, fell down and suffered injuries. In the evidence before the Tribunal, the claimant had his own version to contend that he had not himself known the number of the motorcycle but it was told by his FAO No.618 of 1994 (O&M) - 2 - family members. None of the family members was examined to say how they came to know about the particular motorcycle number or how they knew that motorcyclist had hit the claimant's bicycle and caused the accident. PW1 placed the evidence of PW4, the Sarpanch of the village to say that they had an attempt of compromise on the village where the driver/owner of the motorcycle had admitted to pay compensation but later withdrew from the compromise. Even the doctor, who was examined in the case did not go as far as to say that the injury could have been caused only by a motorcyclist hitting him but he merely spoke about the injuries which he had noted. PW6 Sham Dass was another person in the panchayat, who said that a compromise had been effected and a photocopy had been produced. He was unable to say where the original of the document was and, therefore, the Tribunal chose to discard the document. 2. The owner of the motorcycle was himself examined as RW4 and he stated that he came to know about the alleged accident when he was served with notice from the Tribunal. He also denied that there was any panchayat at any time and that he had accepted at any time to pay compensation for injuries. The evidence placed before the Tribunal did not in the least suggest that the respondents vehicle were ever involved in the accident. The dismissal of the case accords with evidence and I find no scope for interference. The appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.12.2010 sanjeev