FAO No.1687 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1687 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: March 14, 2011 NIRANJAN SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS CHHAJU SINGH & ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: NONE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. PAUL S. SAINI, ADVCOATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation for damage caused to the appellant's vehicle. It was a case of collision between appellant's jeep and a truck belonging to the Police. The mechanic's report after inspection of the vehicles had shown that the headlights of both the vehicles had been broken. The Tribunal took that to be a case of head-on collision and with both the parties trading charges of negligence on the other, it cast the liability between the owners of the two vehicles in equal measure and subjected the petitioner's claim to a partial abatement. 2. The contention in appeal is that the respondent's vehicle had not put on the headlights and since the road also did not have lights, it was dark and the accident had arisen only on account of negligence of the driver of the truck. The driver of the truck himself had examined as RW-1 and he had stated that the accident had taken place only on account of negligent FAO No.1687 of 1992 -2- driving of the driver of the jeep. Under such circumstances, the apportionment of liability in equal measure by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. 3. It is also urged in appeal that the Tribunal had not provided for loss of income that had arisen on account of the fact that the appellant could not put the vehicle to use. The claim for damages before the Tribunal for damage to property can be confined only to the immediate loss by the damage to the property and not consequential loss of income arising on account of the non-user of the said property. Such a right could be enforced only in a properly instituted civil suit and not by means of an application before the Tribunal. 4. Either on the issue of contributory negligence as found by the Tribunal or on the non-entitlement of alleged loss of income by the non-user of the vehicle, the Tribunal has approached the issues correctly and I find no reason to interfere with the award. 5. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant, but I have proceeded to examine the case on merits on the basis of records and disposed of the case by dismissing the appeal. March 14, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE