IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2985 of 1996 Date of decision:19.08.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Jai Kaur and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Tejinderpal Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 4. None for respondents 5 to 9. ----- 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 Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the involvement of the insurer's vehicle. It contended that the case was the result of collusion between the claimants and the respondents 1 to 3. The insurer wanted to prove that the Truck bearing No.PUR-2671 had not been involved at all in the accident and filed the report of a retired SSP. The Tribunal held, however, that there was a direct evidence of Sukhdev Singh (PW-3), who spoke about the involvement of the vehicle and the negligence of the driver. The Tribunal also took note of the admission of the respondents 1 to 3 of the involvement of the vehicle. This aspect of FAO No.2985 of 1996 - 2 - admission may not be relevant for in a case pleaded as one of collusion, admission of one party may have no bearing. However, the Tribunal's ultimate decision was also on the basis of evidence of PW-3, coupled with the fact that the insurer had not attempted to prove the report by examining the person, who gave the report for the basis of such report. If the award has been passed, it has to be sustained only on the basis of the evidence of PW-3 and the fact that the insurer did not offer any contra evidence for the same. 2. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.08.2010 sanjeev