FAO No.2878 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2878 of 2000 Date of Decision. 25.08.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Regional Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Asstt. Manager ......Appellant Versus Surjit Singh son of Prem Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Sonal Datta, Advocate 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 negligence and quantum, contending that the insured's vehicle had not been involved at all in the accident. The owner of the truck, who was alleged to have hit the scooter, which the deceased was driving was owned by the paternal uncle of the deceased. The owner filed a written statement contending that his vehicle was never involved in the accident. The insurance company brought before the Tribunal a report of his investigator that the scooterist had hit against a Rehri and an accident had taken place when he fell down and sustained fatal injuries. Since normally no accident claim would have become possible by the deceased hitting against a Rehri, FAO No.2878 of 2000 -2- they have deliberately connived with the owner, who was his own uncle and implicated the vehicle by giving a statement, which was recorded in DDR. It was a make-believe affair and that is why even the owner/driver of the truck had never been challaned and the police investigation itself had not been taken up further to prosecute the driver of the truck. 2. There exists a grain of doubt about the accident and particularly in view of the fact that there was no FIR registered and even the DDR came about only one day later. However, in this case the person who was said to be pillion rider was examined and he gave evidence of the fact that the accident did take place and he had noticed the vehicle number. The Tribunal was prepared to rely on this version and find the vehicle to have been involved. The claimants were the parents of the deceased and the Tribunal had passed an award of Rs.96,000/-. 3. Before the Tribunal, an attempt was made by the insurance company to secure its investigator's report, who said that the vehicle had not been involved at all and he collected evidence from persons, who were connected with the truck owners' union and who had stated that no vehicle belonging to the insured was ever involved in the accident. The investigator had also been examined. The whole of the statement of the investigator was purely hearsay and if the insurance company was attempting to discredit the testimony of Sajjan Singh, it could have displaced his evidence, only if any person from whom the statement had been recorded by the investigator, had been brought before the Tribunal and his evidence FAO No.2878 of 2000 -3- tendered. The insurance company that had an access to statement of persons connected with the union, who were reported to have given statements that the insured's vehicle had not been involved at all did not put any of them as witness before the Tribunal. While the fact of accident or involvement of a particular vehicle in the accident was particularly an issue, which would place the onus only on the claimant, when they had given some evidence of a person who was an eyewitness, the non-examination of any person, who was supposed to have given the statement to the investigator assume significance. A Tribunal ultimately passes orders and takes decision on the involvement or otherwise of a vehicle only on the basis of evidence tendered before it and after sifting the rival contentions of parties. The evidence of the eye-witness remains uncontroverted, when there was certainly alleged evidence available to discredit the same but which was not produced before the Tribunal. I would, therefore, uphold the finding rendered by the Tribunal regarding the involvement of the insured's vehicle, no matter that the owner of the vehicle was a paternal uncle of the deceased person. 4. The compensation awarded to the parents is very modest to the sum even less than Rs.1 lac and I do not propose to subject the issue of quantum to any reduction. The award is maintained fully and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 25, 2010 Pankaj*