FAO No.2187 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2187 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 23.03.2011 Gurmeet Singh son of Joginder Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Ranjit Singh @ Ramandeep Singh (minor) son of Makhan Singh .....Respondent Present: Mr. Parvez Chugh, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the driver and owner of the vehicle, who were said to have been involved in the accident. The accident was said to have taken place on 24.09.2005 and FIR had also been lodged on the same day by one of the persons, who was injured in the accident. The accident was said to have taken place when the husband, wife and child were travelling in a scooter and the vehicle belonging to the appellants dashed against it, having been driven in rash and negligent manner. The claimants gave their own evidence and spoke about the involvement of the respondent's vehicle and also relied on the report that had been lodged with the police immediately after the accident. The driver of the vehicle denied the involvement of the vehicle. Having regard to the fact that the case had been immediately registered and the petitioners, who had been injured also gave cogent evidence with reference to the FAO No.2187 of 2011 (O&M) -2- involvement of the particular vehicle, the Tribunal found that the rash and negligent driving of the driver had been established. In this case, the wife, who was also one of the claimants had given specific evidence that immediately after the collision, her husband asked the name of the driver. The driver told his name but he left the place even without helping them. All these factors have been sufficient for the Tribunal to find the involvement of the appellants in the accident and I will affirm the said finding. 2. As regards the claim for compensation for injuries for claimants, who are made parties in FAO No.2187 of 2011, learned counsel for the appellants states that the medical expenses had not been appropriately provided and the medical bills, which had been produced in Court were not properly proved. The medical bills were produced in original but the objection is that the counterfoil for the bills had not been produced and the original bill book had not been produced from the chemist. I think the contention is frivolous. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which contemplates the enquiry by the Tribunal allows for sufficient play in the joints to devise appropriate procedure and very strict rules of evidence may not be necessary. Even if such yardstick were to be applied, the production of the original bills, which had been issued to the claimants would be sufficient to find that the bills are genuine unless there is some intrinsic proof that those bills were fabricated. There is no necessity for examination of chemist which in my view, would waste the time of Tribunal nor there is a need for seeking for production of counterfoils for the cash memos. The reliance on the bills produced was, therefore, appropriate. No other FAO No.2187 of 2011 (O&M) -3- argument is advanced with reference to this case. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 23, 2011 Pankaj*