IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 1134 of 1987 Date of Decision: 25.11.2008 Mr.Rajan Jain. ....... Appellant through Shri Ashok Gupta, Advocate. Versus Sh.Malkiat Singh and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 & 2 through Nemo. Respondent no.3 through Shri Neeraj Khanna, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This appeal is directed against common award dated 17.8.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, `the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The truck bearing registration no. HPA-1858 and owned by the appellant was involved in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 19.4.1986. A claim petition was preferred by the appellant for grant of compensation on account of damage sustained by the said truck. In the impugned award, the Tribunal noticed that the appellant F.A.O. No. 1134 of 1987 -2- .... had already received Rs.88500/- from the Insurance Company on account of the damages caused to the truck in question. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the claim petition, the appellant had sought Rs.3,50,000/- for damages to his vehicle. There is a report, Exhibit R1, of the surveyor on the record which shows total damage to the truck as Rs.1,69000/-. The Tribunal has found the drivers of both the vehicles as responsible for causing the accident. This finding has been upheld by a separate judgment of today passed in F.A.O.No.1059 of 1987. In view of the above, even if it is assumed that the appellant was entitled to the amount of damages as assessed by the surveyor, even then he could have received 50% of the same because of the contributory negligence of the driver of his vehicle. As noticed above, a sum of Rs.88500/- has already been received by the appellant, which is more than 50% of the amount of damages assessed by the surveyor, the findings recorded by the Tribunal qua his claim petition do not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. November 25,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge