FAO No.6204 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6204 of 2010 Date of Decision.13.12.2010 State of Punjab through its Secretary, Home, Punjab Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ......Appellants Versus Nirmal Gupta, aged 53 years wife of Shri M.L. Gupta, resident of House NO.254, Vasant Vihar, Hoshiarpur ......Respondents Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab for the appellants. 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 appeal is against the findings of negligence and quantum assessed by the Tribunal. The accident itself is not denied but learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the maruti van in which the claimant was travelling was driven by her husband and the accident had arisen only account of his negligent driving. Learned counsel also contends that there was a delay of nearly two months in lodging the FIR. 2. It must be noticed that the offending vehicle in this case was a police vehicle and if there had been a delay in registering FIR, it is not difficult to discern the reason. It cannot also be said to be material, for the accident itself is not denied. The injuries caused in the accident are also not denied. As regards the negligence attributed FAO No.6204 of 2010 -2- to the husband of the claimant, who was the driver of the maruti car, the FIR had been actually lodged against the driver of the police vehicle and there had been an evidence also in support of the contention made by the claimant that the accident took place only on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of police vehicle. The Tribunal took the fact of registration of a complaint against the police and the oral evidence adduced by the claimant itself as sufficient to find the negligence on the part of the driver of the police vehicle. I do not find any error in the reasoning and therefore, I uphold the same. 3. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel appearing for the Government does not seriously challenge the same and is unable to point out to me of any aspect of the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, which is erroneous to hold that the assessment of compensation is excessive or without any legal basis. I see no cause for interference in appeal. The award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 13, 2010 Pankaj*