FAO No.1998 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1998 of 2006 Date of Decision. 20.09.2010 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Atlas Road, Sonepat through Labh Singh, Assistant Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Sarup Singh son of Tokhan, resident of 1051/12, Janta Colony, Sonepat and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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 on appeal challenging the involvement of the insured's vehicle. The accident was said to have taken place in the morning of 12.06.2002 when the claimant's wife was walking along the road and the insured's truck was alleged to have dashed against her. She suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to death. The FIR had been lodged immediately bearing No.137 dated 12.06.2002 but at that time no details of the truck had been mentioned there. It appears that the claimant came to know about the alleged involvement of the insured's vehicle some three months later when an application was given to the SP, Sonepat on 28.09.2002. The copy of the complaint also appears to have been FAO No.1998 of 2006 -2- sent to the Chief Minister. The copy of the representation and the postal receipt have been filed as P-1 and P-2. In the evidence of the claimant, who was the husband, he admitted that he had no knowledge about the accident personally but he had only been informed that the insured's vehicle had been involved in the accident. PW-2, Rajbir Singh, who was cited as witness in the course of cross-examination admitted that he had not seen the accident, later corrected himself and stated that the accident took place between 5.30 to 6.00 PM. He was unable to even recall whether the accident was in the morning or in the evening. The admitted case was that the claimant's wife sustained fatal injuries in the morning. This evidence cannot, therefore, be relied on. PW-3, Pawan Kumar, was the Ahlmad produced the FIR. This document produced was no more than to state that a particular accident had taken place and that deceased died out of motor accident. PW-4, Satpal is the person, who was said to have witnessed the accident. His evidence was to the effect that he was not able to inform any person including police officials regarding the accident since he did not want to be dragged in the case by the police. He is reported to have informed the husband of the deceased nearly 2-3 months after the accident. The evidence is so artificial that it will unwise to rely on such a plea. 2. The involvement of the vehicle is highly suspect and the award granted by the Tribunal on evidence, which was untrustworthy cannot be sustained. The award is set aside. 3. The claimant shall be at liberty to apply to the FAO No.1998 of 2006 -3- consolidated fund created for this purpose under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act and secure Rs.50,000/- provided for the same. In the meanwhile, however, if any amount has been recovered from the insurance company, it shall not be claimed back from the claimants again. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 20, 2010 Pankaj*