FAO No.1504 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1504 of 2003 Date of Decision. 08.07.2010 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager .........Appellant Versus Kamaljit Kaur Wd/o Tarsem Singh and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Saurabh Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Gobind Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.6. Mr. Kamal Kant Verma, Advocate. 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. In a collision between two trucks, the claim was by the representative of the driver of one truck. The Tribunal found that there had been negligence on the part of respective owners in equal measure and therefore, while finding the total amount of liability to be Rs.3,31,000/- held that the claimant would be entitled only to Rs.1,65,500/- being 50% of the amount that bore to the liability of the other offending vehicle. In other words, the Tribunal found a partial abatement of claim to 50% for the liability attributed to the driving of the deceased driver for his contributory negligence. On FAO No.1504 of 2003 -2- the same token of logic, the award could have been only on the owner and the insurer of the other vehicle which had contributed to the accident. The insurer of the other vehicle is the 7th respondent and the amount must have been directed to have been paid only against the 7th respondent, arrayed as the 4th respondent in the claim petition. The Tribunal had apportioned 50% liability to come from the insurers of both the vehicle. This is clearly wrong. 2. The award is set aside in so far as it is against the appellant and the amount of Rs.1,65,000/- with interest shall be borne only by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited which is the 7th respondent in the appeal. 3. The appeal is allowed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 08, 2010 Pankaj*