FAO No.1372 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.1372 of 2000 DATE OF DECISION: February 25, 2011 HARPREET SINGH ETC. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS AMARJIT KAUR ETC. ...RESPONDENTS 2. FAO No.1373 of 2000 GURCHARAN SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS AMARJIT KAUR ETC. ...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: MR. S.K. SOOD, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MS.SURBHI JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR MR.RAM KAPUR, ADVOCATE AND MR.NEERAJ KHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR MR. RAVINDER ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. Both the appeals are connected and they arise out of the dismissal of he claims for compensation. 2. The claimants were son and father. The father was driving the scooter and the son was a pillion rider. The accident was said to have taken place on 6.9.1994, when first respondent's tempo dashed against the scooter FAO No.1372 of 2000 -2- from behind resulting in serious injuries to the son Harpreet Singh and injuries to the father Gurcharan Singh as well. No FIR had been registered and the Tribunal, therefore, found that the accident involving the respondent's vehicle had not been established. In this case, apart from the evidence of respective claimants there was an eye witness account of one Gopal Singh as PW2. He stated that he was in the bus stand to mend his shoes and at that time truck No.CH01-0934 driven rashly by the driver struck against the scooter from behind. He stated that people surrounded the truck and he was taken to the police station. His version was that the owner of the truck got released the truck without getting the case registered against it by using his influence. He stated in Court that he was able to identify the claimants and that they were not known to him prior to the accident. He had stated in the cross- examination that he had gone to the police station to lodge a complaint, but he was not there. The petition was dismissed only because a criminal case had not been registered. In my view, it was incorrect approach in a case where a definite allegations was made against the owner and driver and there was also an explanation given by the witnesses as to how a complaint did not get registered inspite of his effort for lodging a complaint, then that ought to have been taken as establishing the involvement of the vehicle, by the only fact that neither the driver nor the witness came to Court to contradict the stand. An adverse inference ought to have been drawn for non-examination of respondents No.1 and 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also points out that in the cross-examination, the suggestion by the insurance company was that the accident had taken place by the negligence and even a case of non-involvement of the insured's vehicle had FAO No.1372 of 2000 -3- not been suggested to the either of the claimants. I will take the involvement of the vehicle as, therefore, fully established and set aside the finding to the contrary by the Tribunal. As regards the quantum of compensation, while addressing the injury suffered by the claimant in FAO No.1372 of 2000, the Tribunal assessed a compensation of lakh of rupees on the basis of fracture and injuries suffered by the claimant. But having regard to the finding that the involvement of the vehicle had not been established, it proceeded to dismiss it. I will award the claimant a compensation of a lakh of rupees, consistent with my finding on the issue of involvement of the vehicle that the insured's vehicle was involved and consequently, the insurer shall become liable for payment of compensation. It will also bear interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. In FAO No.1373 of 2000, the claimant had been hospitalized for three days with injuries, all of which are simple in nature. The Tribunal did not found that there was any ground made for assessing the compensation. I will provide for an amount of `15,000/- as compensation payable in fully quit of the claim. The amount shall be paid by the insurer within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the order, failing which it will also attract interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The awards are set aside and the appeals are allowed to the above extent. February 25, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE