FAO No.674 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.674 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: March 11, 2011 SMT. ANGOORI DEVI ETC. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS RAMPHAL ETC. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. BALJINDER SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR MR. K.S. DHALIWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for death of a male aged 47. The claimants were widow and children. The accident had taken place when the deceased and the son were walking alongwith the road and the vehicle belonging to the respondent which was a Ford tractor dashed against the deceased and sped away. The accident was said to have been taken place at 8.00 p.m. at Meham road near Sharda Public School in Gohana. The FIR which registered at the same day around 11.25 p.m. on 24.12.1987. In the FIR lodged by the son who was an eye-witness, he had given reference to the identity of the vehicle by the colour, by the manufacturer as well as the fact that in the plate mentioning the name as Ford, a part of it had broken and fallen containing the words 'Fo' and that plate was also produced before the police. FAO No.674 of 1989 -2- 2. Respondent No.1 who was a driver denied the accident and stated that although he was driving along the said road, he was not in any way involved in the accident. According to him, the police demanded a bribe of `50/- and when he did not pay the same, he was falsely booked. Surprisingly, this hackneyed version was believed by the Tribunal. The registered owner set up a defence that he had transferred the vehicle to respondent No.1. The transfer was not proved in any way. The Tribunal, in my view, erred completely in finding that involvement of the vehicle was not established. The eye witness had given sufficient indication about the identity of the vehicle and when respondent No.1 also admitted that he was driving the tractor, but he was explaining his presence around the spot in some way by suggesting that he was falsely implicated only because he had not satisfied some illegal demand by the police, the Tribunal ought to have rejected this evidence as unworthy. It was not in defence that colour of the tractor was not Blue; that it was not a Ford tractor; not indeed that the vehicle was not driven along that road. The coincidences are little too many to discard that the vehicle had not been involved at all in the accident. I, therefore, reverse the finding and hold that respondent No.1 was driving the tractor and it was that tractor which was responsible for the accident. 3. I cannot also absolve respondent No.2 of liability when he was admittedly the registered owner and he had brought nothing before Court to show that he had transferred the vehicle. If there was a transfer, respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to recover the amount after payment by independent suit. 4. The Tribunal had assessed `1,92,000/- as the amount payable, but suggested further deduction of `25,000/- for uncertainties of life. There FAO No.674 of 1989 -3- need to be no such deduction and the amount as assessed shall be borne jointly and severally by the respondents. 5. The appeal is allowed with a compensation of `1,92,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 6. The amount shall be distributed equally amongst the wife and the children. March 11, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE