IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.970 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision:01.04.2011 Rupinder Singh ....Appellant versus The United Commercial Bank, Malout, now at UCO Bank, Old Post Office, Chowk Malout, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Kanwalvir Singh Kang, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents 1 and 2 Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.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. The appeal by the claimant is against the dismissal of the petition claiming compensation for injuries suffered in the accident. The accident had taken place on 08.06.1991 and the appellant had fairly a long period of treatment with as many as 11 surgeries to correct the fractures and undergone skin grafting for degloving injuries resulting in removal of skin over the joints. 2. The accident had occurred admittedly in a collision of the first respondent's jeep which was collided with a scooter in which the FAO No.970 of 1996 (O&M) - 2 - claimant was a pillion rider. The collision had taken place, according to the first respondent, in his attempt to avoid hitting a stray buffalo which was crossing the road. The driver had applied the brake and it capsized and fell on the leg of the claimant crushing his thigh and foot. This, the Tribunal found was due to unexpected sudden crossing of the buffalo. 3. A driver driving on Indian roads ought to know that roads are not meant only for vehicles to cross, they could just as well be for cattle crossing and it is expected that a driver applies sufficient caution and care that by his driving, come what may, he does not cause any harm to any other person using the road. The evidence of the Tribunal that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep is absolutely wrong and it is set aside. The accident must have seen to have the result of negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the first respondent and driven by the second respondent. 4. After dismissing the petition, the Tribunal has not considered the issue of quantum at all. Since the accident relates to the year 1991, I made an attempt to look into the issue of quantum if the materials were sufficient to undertake such an exercise. However, I find that the accident was fairly serious and there had been substantial evidence before the Tribunal, all of which are not available. There had been a fire incident in this Court when the original files have been consigned to flames. The appellant shall be permitted to adduce secondary evidence of all the original evidence which had been destroyed and when such documents are produced before the Court duly certified as true copies, it shall not be permissible for the respondent to FAO No.970 of 1996 (O&M) - 3 - take any objection regarding the admissibility of such documents. The claimant shall be permitted to place further medical evidence as he deems necessary to explain his present disability for appropriate assessment of compensation. 5. Having regard to the fact that the case is of the year 1991, the Tribunal shall make every endeavour to dispose of the case as early as possible and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date when the records are received by the Tribunal. 6. For appearance of parties before the Tribunal at Faridkot on 29.04.2011. 7. Registry is directed to despatch all papers immediately to the said Tribunal. 8. The appeal is allowed and remitted to the above said Tribunal on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 01.04.2011 sanjeev