FAO No.3108 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Obj No.7-CII of 2010 in/and FAO No.3108 of 2006 Date of Decision. 07.10.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17- B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager, Sh. R.C. Bansal ......Appellant Versus Uma Devi widow of Sh. Rajesh son of Sh. Jai Pal resident of H.No.29, Friends Colony, Panipat and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant. None for the claimants. 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. 1. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the insured's vehicle had not been involved at all in the accident. The claimants who were the legal representatives of the deceased pillion rider in a motor cycle contended that the accident took place when the truck bearing registration No.HR-46A-7911 had dashed against a motor cycle causing a fatal injury to the deceased. Admittedly, no FIR had been lodged. It was also brought out in evidence that even the owner of the motor cycle did not make any claim against his insurer for alleged accident. 2. The attempt of the insurer was to show that even the FAO No.3108 of 2006 -2- incident of motor accident itself was fake. There had been no evidence as to why complaint was not given to the police. Even the post-mortem certificate had not been produced to show that the death had resulted only due to motor accident. 3. The claimants had examined one Manoj as PW-2, who said that he was accompanying the deceased at the time of accident. The Tribunal had merely observed that in spite of lengthy cross- examination, nothing has been brought to shatter his evidence. The Tribunal has made no attempt to see as to why such a serious accident that involved the death of a person was not even reported by him to the police. The Tribunal had also made reference to the evidence of criminal court Ahalmd PW-4 to say that a case had been registered. Beyond the same, it was not possible to infer whether there was any specific reference about the insured's vehicle. On the other hand, there had been positive evidence from the driver of the alleged offending vehicle itself to say that he never involved the vehicle in any accident. He also said that he had not been called by police at any time for enquiry nor was any case registered against him. With no criminal case filed against the driver, it is difficult to accept the finding of the Tribunal that the accident could have taken place involving the respondent's vehicle. If ever it is proved that the death was the result of any motor accident, the appropriate remedy for the claimants would be only to approach the Government for release of Solatium Funds established by the respective State Governments as enjoined under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. FAO No.3108 of 2006 -3- 4. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and the claim petition is dismissed. There has been a cross petition for enhancement but there was no presence for the counsel to support his plea. The cross appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. In the light of my finding that there was no involvement of the insured's vehicle, the claimant shall be at liberty to approach for appropriate relief by the Government under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 07, 2010 Pankaj*