IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.710 of 2005 Date of decision:10.09.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Neelam Devi and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.711 of 2005 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Nirmala Devi and others ...Respondents III. Civil Revision No.963 of 2005 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Pawan Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the respondents. ---- 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. All the three cases arise out of the same accident where it was alleged that the insured's tractor was involved in the accident. At the FAO No.710 of 2005 - 2 - trial, the person, who lodged the FIR stated that a Eicher Tractor dashed against the car resulting in fatal injuries to two persons and grievous injuries to others. He had not given the registration number or the name of the driver but he had made reference about the particular make of the tractor. The identity of the vehicle with reference to the registration number and the tractor was sought to be established through Shiv Charan and the police had also subsequently arrested the driver of the tractor. Shiv Charan also gave evidence before the Court that he was an eye- witness of the accident and he gave the details of the tractor number to the police. 2. The driver examined himself and denied the accident. The Tribunal on sifting the evidence adduced by both parties, came to a conclusion that the fact of accident itself was not in dispute and the involvement of the vehicle was immediately probablised by the fact that the FIR, that was lodged immediately after the accident, contained details of the involvement of a tractor of the particular make and what was lacking in FIR was sufficiently brought through the evidence of yet another person. The Tribunal found therefore the involvement of the insured's tractor to have been established and awarded compensation against the owner and insurer. 3. The learned counsel Shri Inderjeet Sharma appearing on behalf of the insurer vehemently contends that if Shiv Charan had been present at that time and was an eye-witness, he would have himself accompanied the injured persons to the hospital and he would have also given complaint to the police. It is a fact of life that every person who is FAO No.710 of 2005 - 3 - an eye-witness does not turn to be an immediate good Samaritan to take a person who is injured and admit him in the hospital, or get driven by such an acute civic sense to rush up to a police station and ensure whether a complaint had been registered or not. In this case, he had not after all run away from the situation and he was prepared to own up a statement before the police and give the details of what he claimed that he saw. I do not find anything artificial about the evidence of Shiv Charan and if the Court relied on details found in the FIR and took the evidence of Shiv Charan to provide the missing link, then I would think the Tribunal has considered all the relevant factors and has come to the particular decision regarding the involvement of the tractor. 4. The learned counsel also stoutly contends that the driving licence produced by the driver was showed that it was issued on 03.07.2000 and the accident had taken place on 28.06.2000. Even apart from the licence said to have been issued from the Licensing Authority at Thanesar, the driver was relying on yet another licence issued by the Government of Nagaland that the licence was said to have been issued on 09.04.1987 and it was renewed on 08.04.2000. It is not very clear as to how the driver had two licences in contravention of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, I do not want to enter into that controversy for the Tribunal had reasoned that when yet another licence was produced by the driver, no attempt was made to have it verified to say that it was not genuine or that it was a fake one. I rest the reasoning of the Tribunal as worthy of acceptance and would also therefore reject the contention of the insurer that any right of recovery should be FAO No.710 of 2005 - 4 - provided against the insured. 5. The awards of the Tribunal are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. The Amicus Curiae shall be paid as per the scales out of the amicus curiae fund. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.09.2010 sanjeev