FAO No.2124 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2124 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 11.03.2011 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY FAI building 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi, Corporate Office, 4th and 5th Floor IFFCO Tower, Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon (Haryana) 122 001 ......Appellant Versus Jagdish Raghav s/o Mangal Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal by the insurance company is on the issue that the accident could not have taken place since the author of the FIR was said to be the driver and the deceased was a pillion rider. The suggestion was that the rider of the motor cycle himself did not receive injuries but only the pillion rider and therefore, it was most unlikely that there could have been any accident at all. If the Tribunal ultimately found the issue of involvement of the vehicle on the basis of evidence, which was available and what was found in the FIR that clearly made out a case of accident, it shall not lie in the mouth of the insurance company to raise a doubt about it by the fact that the motorcyclist did not have an injury and without an injury on the motorcylist, pillion rider could not have suffered a serious injuries to die. It is just as well possible that a FAO No.2124 of 2011 (O&M) -2- person, who drives a motor cycle and who has the handle bar to hold on, has greater stability and he could have more vigilant to an eventuality of accident than an unwary pillion rider, who may not have known that the impact was imminent and he may have been less stable in his own seat to have suffered the fatal injuries. 2. I cannot permit the insurance company to urge pleas which are not permissible under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The finding of involvement of the vehicle as made by the Tribunal in its judgment is sustained. 3. It is also stated that there is some clerical error made in the calculation by the Tribunal. It shall be open to the Tribunal itself for correction of any clerical error that may have crept in the mode of calculation. I will not subject this to any modification in this Court. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal by the insurance company is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 11, 2011 Pankaj*