FAO No. 1242 of 1992 FAO No. 1244 of 1992 FAO No. 1159 of 1992 CR No. 2649 of 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1242 of 1992 Date of decision February 14, 2011 Parkash Singh ....... Appellant Versus Surinder Kumar and others ........Respondents FAO No.1244 of 1992 Parkash Singh ....... Appellant Versus Smt. Karuna Devi and others ..........Respondents FAO No.1159 of 1992 Smt. Karuna Devi ....... Appellant Versus Joginder Singh and others ..........Respondents CR No. 2649 of 1992 Parkash Singh ....... Appellant Versus Smt. Lachmi Devi and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. R. M. Suri , Advocate for the appellant in FAO Nos.1242,1244 and CR No.2649 of 1992. None for the appellant in FAO No.1159 of 1992. FAO No. 1242 of 1992 FAO No. 1244 of 1992 FAO No. 1159 of 1992 CR No. 2649 of 1992 Mr. D.P. Gupta , Advocate for respondent No.5-Insurance Company . Mr. R. C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent NO.3-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. Counsel for the appellant has filed copy of the paper book of CR No.2649 of 1992 the original of which had been burnt in fire that took place on 30.1.2011. The papers now filed shall substitute the papers that are unavailable and shall constitute for all practical purposes as the records of the Court. Papers are duly reconstructed in the above fashion. 2. All the appeals and Civil revision are connected and arise out of the same accident. The owner of the truck which was found to be responsible for the accident is in appeals in FAO Nos.1242 and 1244 and C.R. No.2649 of 1992. FAO No.1159 of 1992 is the appeal by the claimant in respect of a subject matter which is covered in FAO No.1244 of 1992. 3. In the manner of how the accident had taken place, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant who was owner of the truck would say that the truck was coming on the Chandigarh Highway and the car driver was driving along a side road and it come on into road near where there was a chowk. PW-7 stated that there was no chowk at the time when the accident had taken place but the driver of the car himself had explained as RW-1 that only when the vehicle came to the FAO No. 1242 of 1992 FAO No. 1244 of 1992 FAO No. 1159 of 1992 CR No. 2649 of 1992 main road and when it was turning truck had dashed against the rear right side of the car. By the manner in which the narration of the accident was given it was clear that the car driver did not wait to see the vehicle coming on the main road and he had himself expressed that he had not seen any vehicle coming on the main road and only when he turned, he was sudden by struck at the end of the car by the truck. If the point of impact had been on the front side of the car, I would have found that driver of the car himself was responsible wholly. However, it is at the trial end of the car. However, if a person coming on the main road had been careful he could not have hit the car, I will place a higher percentage of responsibility for the driver of the truck but I would also apportion 25% liability on the driver of the car for his negligence in not allowing the car coming on the main road the benefit of priority of way and the driver had been negligent in not properly waiting for the vehicle which was coming on the main road to go before he got into the main road. I will therefore modify the issue of negligence as found by the Tribunal and hold that between the driver of the truck and driver of the car, the liability has to be borne in the ratio of 75:25. 4. The Insurance Company for the truck pleads for restriction of liability to `1,50,000/- in any one accident and I would understand this restriction of liability to mean `1,50,000/- in every one of the accidents arising out of the claim against each one of the claimants. The liability of the insurer for the truck will stand restricted to 75% and the remaining 25% could be enforced by claimant against the insurer of the car responsible to the accident by 25%. For the unrealized portion of any of the claims for 75% in excess of `1,50,000/-, the claimant shall have the right of enforcement against he owner of the truck. The awards are modified and the appeals are disposed of as above. FAO No. 1242 of 1992 FAO No. 1244 of 1992 FAO No. 1159 of 1992 CR No. 2649 of 1992 5. The claimant's appeal No.1159 of 1992 for enhancement of compensation for injury is dismissed for non-prosecution. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 14, 2011 archana