IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2856 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision:04.01.2011 Kamal Singh alias Kanwal Singh ....Appellant versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents. ---- 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 by the claimant against the dismissal of his petition claiming damages for injuries alleged to have been suffered. The accident involved collision of two vehicles and the appellant, who was the driver of the vehicle, was found by the Tribunal to be principally responsible for the accident. The tyre of the bus was said to have burst and the other vehicle rammed into the bus which the appellant was driving. The evidence had adduced to the effect that the tyres had been periodically checked and that there was no negligence. The proper upkeep of the tyres could be established duly by a Government Corporation by producing the relevant logbook containing details of purchase of the tyres and tubes and any entries of maintenance of the FAO No.2856 of 1999 (O&M) - 2 - tyres ought to have found place in the logbook. The best document that could bring evidence about the maintenance for the tyres was not placed before the Court and the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in finding that the vehicle which was being driven by the appellant alone was responsible for the accident. 2. In a situation like this, a proper remedy for the claimant would have been only to approach the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for damages against his own employer. I am prepared to examine the case as a claim arising under the WC Act, since this Court is the appellate forum under Section 30 of the WC Act. However, I find that there is no material at all placed by the claimant at the time of trial either as regards the injuries or as regards any other inconvenience or disability arising out of the alleged injuries. 3. Learned counsel points out that the appellant had been given light duty on account of injury. I am afraid, it cannot prove either the nature of injuries or how it has impacted his prospects of employment. 4. The appellant cannot, therefore, obtain any benefit through this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 04.01.2011 sanjeev