FAO No.488 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.488 of 1995 Date of Decision. 26.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO 177- 178, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Deputy Manager Shr. S.K. Bansal ......Appellant Versus Harbhajan Kaur w/o Sh. Harnek Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate for Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate amicus curiae for 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.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the claim made on behalf of the representatives of the deceased Harnek Singh, who had died in a motor accident when a maruti van struck against tree. The claimants contended that at the relevant time when the accident took place, one Satnam Singh was the driver and the accident arose on account of his negligent driving. The insurance company, however, took the defence, which was supported by the insured that the deceased Harnek Singh was himself driving the vehicle and that was how it was also described in the DDR. Since the representatives could not have claimed compensation if Harnek FAO No.488 of 1995 -2- Singh were to have driven the vehicle, the case was twisted to contend that Satnam Singh was driving and that he was a passenger in the vehicle. 2. At the trial, the following important incidents were noted. The photographs showed that the left side of the vehicle had been severely damaged and the driver's portion of the front side had not been as seriously damaged, indicating thereby that the driver would have survived in the accident while a passenger sitting on the left could not have survived. The dead body of Harnek was extracted from the left side of the car and if he had at the driver's seat, the door on the right side would have been opened to pull out the body. The statement in DDR that Harnek Singh was driving the vehicle was only to be seen as an obvious and deliberate wrong story for Satnam Singh, who was giving a complaint did not want to implicate himself as having caused the accident. For the own damage claim, the owner gave a statement to the effect that Harnek Singh was the driver at the relevant time, which statement itself is inconsequential, for the owner or driver ought to have remained consistent with their respective versions with the police in order to obtain OD claim from the insurer. They could not have stated that Satnam Singh was driving which would have conflicted with the earliest version and would have found the claim for OD with insurer suspect and liable for denial by the insurance company. 3. The Tribunal had given reasons to reject the contention of the insurance company and accept the version given by the claimant, notwithstanding the fact that in the DDR, the reference was that FAO No.488 of 1995 -3- Harnek Singh was driving the vehicle. I have already illustrated as to why it should have been possible and that was the reasoning also adopted by the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal has approached the factual details with remarkable precision and I want to make no intervention in its finding. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Having regard to the fact that the accident had taken place in the year 1991, any amount in deposit need not be retained any further. The amount may be ordered to be paid to the claimants. Learned counsel Sh. Sunil Garg appointed as amicus curiae shall be entitled to the remuneration as per the scales out of the amicus curiae fund. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 26, 2010 Pankaj*