FAO No.2128 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2128 of 2005 Date of Decision. 16.09.2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.332-34, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Dy. Manager ......Appellant Versus Satwant Kaur wd/o Kulwinder Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Singh, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, 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. Although the respondents-claimants had been served, they have chosen to remain ex parte. 2. The insurance company is on appeal denying the factum of the accident and pleading that there was a collusion between the owner, driver and the claimants. No such accident took place involving the insured's vehicle. The contention was that a DDR was recorded immediately after the accident where a statement had been recorded by one Darshan Singh that evidenced that the deceased while driving his car drove into a ditch and suffered fatal injuries. The accident was said to have taken place on 11.05.2003 FAO No.2128 of 2005 -2- and no FIR had been registered at all. The contention was that at the trial, the only eye-witness was the widow of the deceased who said that while they were returning from Amritsar, the insured's vehicle dashed against the car pushing the car into a ditch as a result of which her husband died and all of them suffered grievous injuries. It was also stated in the chief-examination that immediately after the accident took place, several persons gathered there and the driver of the offending vehicle also got down but he sped away after seeing the people. She gave an explanation as to why she had not lodged a FIR by stating that the owner offered to settle the matter and therefore, they did not pursue the case through a police complaint. 3. During the trial, the DDR was produced through RW-1 and it merely records the fact that the vehicle fell into a ditch and makes no mention about any collision with the truck. If the claimants' version were to be true and several persons had gathered, there ought to have been some eye witness to testify about the involvement of the truck. The case seems too artificial to believe that the truck dashed against the car on account of which, the vehicle fell into a ditch. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the claimant by the only fact that it is not necessary in all cases that a FIR should be registered. While I do not make an issue that case could not be true by the only fact of FIR had not been registered, there could at least be sufficient and dependable version about the accident itself. It is inconceivable that the statement recorded in the DDR, which was made immediately after the accident by son in FAO No.2128 of 2005 -3- law of the claimant could have omitted to make reference to such an important fact of the involvement of yet another vehicle. If the accident had taken place in the manner in which it was narrated, it should have been definitely referred in the DDR. With merely the ipse dixit version of the claimant, it is not possible to uphold the claim that the accident did take place involving the insured's vehicle. 4. The Tribunal has found the version of the claimants to be true also by the fact that the driver and the owner accepted the claim in the written statement. They did not have the courage to come to Court to subject themselves to cross-examination. In a case where a collusion is pleaded, the Tribunal ought to have looked for every evidence and could not have merely referred to an unsubstantiated version put in through a written statement that the vehicle had been involved. I do not believe the version of the claimants that there was accident involving the insured's vehicle. The finding rendered to that effect is erroneous and it is, therefore, set aside. 5. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 16, 2010 Pankaj*