FAO No.3854 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3854 of 2006 Date of Decision. 15.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office-II, SCO No.337- 340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory Mrs. Sarla Lamba Asistant Manager ......Appellant Versus Prem Chand s/o Sh. Yog Chand and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Navin Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 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 appellant is the insurer for the motor cycle and the claimant was a pillion rider on the motor cycle. The claim arose out of injury sustained in a collision of the motor cycle with a jeep belonging to the Forest Department, State of Haryana. The accident is said to have been taken place when a jeep, which was going ahead of the motor cycle stopped suddenly and the motor-cyclist hit the FAO No.3854 of 2006 -2- jeep from behind. The claimant had stated originally in the petition that the accident had taken place by the negligent driving of the jeep and of the motor-cyclist but in evidence he modified his version to state that the accident was the result of the negligent driving of the motor-cyclist only. In evidence also he took the same stand. The driver of the jeep was also examined in the case and he had denied that there was any negligence on his part. The Tribunal reasoned that even if the negligence of the driver of the motor cycle and driver of the jeep was the cause of the accident, the accident could have been avoided if the motor-cyclist had kept sufficient distance between the jeep from motor cycle and if the motor cyclist had been at a normal speed. It found the evidence of the driver of the jeep and the explanation as to why he had to suddenly apply the brakes has sufficiently shown that the driver of the jeep was not responsible for the accident. The Court found the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable and a motor-cyclist hitting the jeep from behind was taken to be negligent act of the driver of the motor cycle only. 2. The issue of negligence on the part of the motor-cyclist had been considered by the Tribunal at great length and I do not want to take a different view only because another view may also be possible. I confirm the award and dismiss the appeal. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE September 15, 2010 Pankaj*