R.S.A No. 1665 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1665 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : April 27, 2010 Dilbag Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Smt. Sushila Devi and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the appellant. *** 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the respondents for compensation on account of the death of the husband of respondent No.1 in an accident. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that respondent No.1 had not been able to prove any negligence on the part of the appellant. The lower appellate Court, however, reversed this finding of fact placing reliance on the statement of an eye witness, namely, Ram Niwas who had been disbelieved by the trial Court. R.S.A No. 1665 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: The following questions have been proposed :- “ 1) Whether the impugned judgment and decree are perverse and are based on misreading of evidence ? 2) Whether it is illegal and beyond the provision of the Fatal Accident Act to hold a person vicariously liable to pay the compensation ? 3) Whether the loss for which compensation can be awarded under the Fatal Accident Act is referable to the loss caused to the injured/deceased or is referable to the loss caused to the dependents on account of loss of dependency due to the death of injured/deceased ?” Counsel for the appellant has addressed arguments only on question No.1. The said question is a pure question of fact. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon by the lower appellate Court are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 27, 2010. JUDGE `kk'