FAO No.1195 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1195 of 1995 Date of Decision.08.12.2010 Mohinder son of Ram Chander, Caste Brahmin resident of Mandi Atali, District Mohindergarh ......Appellant Versus Ram Nath son of Bodh Ran Brahmin, resident of Gopal Colony, Rohtak and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant.` None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent No.3. 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 appeal is at the instance of the claimant, whose case was dismissed on the ground that he was himself responsible for the accident. He was driver of a pick up van, who while following yet another vehicle, the insured's truck HYF-9895, stated that the vehicle going ahead of him suddenly stopped without any indication and therefore, he rammed into the truck going in front. While the claimant would state that the negligent and rash way of stopping of the truck going ahead caused the accident, the driver of the insured's truck Ram Nath gave evidence to the effect that he was carrying cement bags in the truck and when the vehicle had come near Rewari, FAO No.1195 of 1995 -2- the tube of the rear left side wheel got punctured and the truck was put on a jack and the tyre had been removed and he had gone away for the purpose of getting the tyre repaired, leaving the truck parked on the left side of the metal road. He had also stated that he switched on the parking lights. A witness was there, who was said to be coming about the same time in scooter and gave evidence that the accident had taken place only by the sudden stopping of the insured's truck. Sifting the evidence of both sides, the Tribunal found that the accident had taken place only on account of the negligent driving of the claimant himself. The Tribunal also made note of the fact that the police had come to the spot and prepared a site plan. It appears that there was yet another person, who died in the accident but I have no information as to what had come about that accident. 2. In the light of contradictory statements by the claimant and respondent No.1 stating that the insured's truck suddenly stopped without any lights, the driver of the truck himself would state that the vehicle was not moving but it had been stationary and there were parking lights. In any event, the accident could not have taken place if the claimant himself had been careful and I would apportion the liability 50:50 between the claimant and the driver of the insured's truck. 3. If the case must, therefore, be considered for the quantum of compensation, the evidence available on file is skeletal that does no credit to the claimant's case. The injury is stated to have been simple in nature and he had some multiple abrasions on the knee joint and lacerated wound on the left arm. The doctor Dinesh Podhar had FAO No.1195 of 1995 -3- also given evidence with reference to the record, which was marked as PW3/A. I would accord to the claimant Rs.5,000/- as compensation despite factoring the 50% negligence for his own contribution to the accident. 4. The award is set aside and the appeal is allowed for Rs.5,000/- with interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 08, 2010 Pankaj*