FAO No.4621 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4621 of 2007 Date of Decision. 12.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd., near Sewak Sabha Hospital, Hisar, through Shri Baljeet Singh, Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17, Chandigarh. ......Appellant Versus Munshi Ram son of Sh. Magha Ram, resident of House No.22, Street No.03, Dhani Sham Lal, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Manmohan, Advocate for Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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 insurance company is on appeal on the issue of negligence and quantum. The claimant is an injured passenger in a private vehicle going to PGI for seeing a sick relative. On the way, it appears that the vehicle turned turtle and one person died and the claimant was injured. The Tribunal found that the driver was responsible for the accident by his negligent driving and awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for the injuries suffered by the claimant. 2. The insurance company is on appeal stating that no FIR was even filed and in a case where a person died, there was no claim FAO No.4621 of 2007 -2- even by the representatives of the deceased. The contention, therefore, was that there was no negligence. I find such a contention to be untenable for the fact that FIR was not lodged or the representatives of yet another person did not prosecute the claim, cannot in any means explain the fact of a vehicle turning turtle and cap sizing on the road. It is a simple case of res ipsa loquitur where the negligence must be taken to be established by the manner in which the accident took place. 3. The compensation had been awarded for injuries suffered by the injured to an extent of Rs.15,000/-. The amount is paltry and to subject such an award to an appeal is despicable for a public body like an insurance company to indulge in. All these are hard times when the Courts are at an increasing pressure and it is only desirable that cases that would require proper adjudication of bona fide dispute take the Courts' time. An appellant challenging an award of Rs.15,000/- does not advance the cause of any public body. 4. The appeal is frivolous and it is dismissed. The appellant shall file Rs.5,000/- as costs to the High Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks from the date of this order. A copy of this order is marked to the High Court Legal Services Authority to enforce this order. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 12, 2010 Pankaj*