FAO No. 1360 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1360 of 2000 Date of decision May 13, 2011 Prahlad Singh Kochhar ....... Appellant Versus Zamindara Transport Cooperative Society Ltd., and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- None for the appellant. Mr. Parvesh Sachdeva , Advocate for Mr. A. K. Khunger, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. At the time when the matter is taken, there is no representation for the appellant. The counsel appearing for respondent No.1 seeks for time, I decline the request and proceed to deliver this judgment on examining the records. 2. The appeal for compensation had been filed at the instance of the owner of the jeep claiming damages caused to the vehicles by a collision with a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by the second respondent. The contention of the appellant was that the jeep was on a tow with tractor bearing registration No. HMT 3511 and when the vehicles were going towards Ganganagar, the bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by second respondent dashed against the jeep resulting in serious damage to the jeep. In the impact, the tractor had also turned turtle and the driver of the tractor had suffered serious injuries. FAO No. 1360 of 2000 2 3. At the trial the claimant had examined a spare part dealer to say that he had sold spare parts for the vehicle which had been fixed to the vehicle involved in the accident. AW-2 was said to be a motor mechanic who gave evidence to the effect that the claimant had brought the damaged jeep for which he had carried out the repair. The photograph of the damaged jeep was also filed before the Court. The photograph of the bus which was involved in the accident showing registration number RRK 6223 was also produced before the Court. The bills for purchase of spare parts and the voucher for the repairs affected on the vehicle was proved through the motor mechanic who had carried out the repairs. The bills detailed `23,716/- and the vouchers showed labour and other charges to the tune of `20,920/-. Neither the driver nor the owner was examined to deny the accident and the counsel appearing for the respondent had merely filed the R.C., book and the insurance. The Insurance Company gave no evidence denying the insurance but the policy was filed to show that it was an Act only policy and the liability for a third party for damage to the vehicle was therefore restricted. 4. The Tribunal, while deciding the case, found that the petitioner had not established the accident. He was not prepared to rely on even the FIR which had clearly given details of the involvement of the vehicle RR-6223. He found that there were no independent witnesses to speak about the accident except the driver of the jeep and therefore proceeded to dismiss the petition. I find the decision of the Tribunal is perverse and irresponsible and there was a clear reference to the involvement of the first respondent's bus. The driver of the jeep himself had spoken about the same. Photograph of the jeep as well as bus parked in the same place was also produced as evidence. I have also observed neither the owner nor the driver took the witness stand to deny the involvement of the vehicle. On the other hand, they had produced R.C., FAO No. 1360 of 2000 3 book and given the insurance details. The evidence was overwhelming for the Tribunal to discard the involvement of the vehicle. I set aside the finding relating to the non-involvement of the vehicle and hold that the accident had been caused only by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 5. The bills produced in Court had also been rejected as unworthy of acceptance. I have seen through the bills and they show a ring of genuineness about themselves. I have no reason to suspect that the expenses which were said to have been incurred could not have been true. The photographs produced before the Tribunal showed that the vehicle was damaged on the right side and it was severally dented. The expenses which were said to have been incurred were modest and I provide for the amounts borne through records and hold that the bills produced to the tune of `44636/- have to be upheld. I will round it off to `45,000/- and allow the same. As regards the liability of the Insurance Company as per the terms of the policy, the liability should be restricted to what is statutorily provided, since it was merely an act only policy and hence, the liability stands restricted to `6,000/-. The amount in excess of the same shall be borne by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The amount determined will attract interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. There shall be an award in the manner referred to above against the respondents with liability apportioned in the manner again referred to above. 6. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 13, 2011 archana