IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1937 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.07.2010 Rajesh Kumar ....Appellant versus Smt. Tripta Sharma and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellant. ---- 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. 1. The appeal is against the award of compensation of Rs.2,79,966/- against the owner of the truck that was involved in an accident by collision with a motorcycle which was being driven by one Harish Chander Sharma on whose death the claim has been made by the wife and the son. The Tribunal awarded only the medical expenses incurred at the first time when the accident had taken place and dismissed the claim for compensation for the death on the ground that the death was not shown to have arisen out of the accident. I do no want to enter into the issue whether the death arose out of the accident since the claimants are not in appeal and the appeal has been filed only by the FAO No.1937 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - owner of the truck stating there was no negligence and that he could not have been made liable for the medical expenses incurred by the deceased. On the issue of negligence, the Tribunal has acted on the recitals of the FIR which had been recorded by the Police. The Tribunal had reasoned that the statement of witness Mahesh Kumar at whose instance the FIR was drawn up was not challenged and also observed that the 1st respondent-driver had been challaned in the criminal case. It must only be taken that it was a negligence driving of the 1st respondent that should have caused the accident. There is no reason to interfere with the finding of fact with reference to the cause for the accident and attributing negligence only on the truck driver. 2. It is urged by the appellant that there had been a delay of 2 days in filing the FIR. It is also stated that no eye-witness had been examined and the registration of the FIR by the police, who was not shown to be eye-witness, could not have been relied on. There is no rule of thumb that in every case eye-witness must be examined. When a criminal case had been registered and when FIR had been filed for an accident which is not denied by giving any contra evidence, there is no reason to differ with the finding rendered by the Tribunal. Significantly, in this case, the involvement of the truck itself was not disputed. It is, however, contended that the driver of the truck was not responsible for the accident but only the motorcyclist was. In my view, neither the fact that the FIR was delayed nor the non-examination of eye-witness is material since the factum of accident is admitted and if there was a delay it could be seen to be attributed to the fact that the deceased was at that FAO No.1937 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - time still at the hospital and he was discharged only after 10 days. In his own state of injuries, he could not have filed the complaint and if the appellants had admitted that the accident had taken place in the public place, it could not put out against the claimants to deny their entitlement to compensation. 3. Without making any observation as to whether the ultimate death was the cause of the accident, I still confirm the award for what was determined only for the medical expenses incurred which was supported by medical bills. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.07.2010 sanjeev