FAO No.1981 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1981 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:12.9.2011 National Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt. Mamta and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant Mr.LS Bhangu, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr.Arvind Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3. -.- JITENDRA CHUAHAN, J. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant/ appellant against the award dated 14.12.2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). Tersely put, the facts of the case are, that on 12.6.2009 while Kaminder Singh deceased was going from Narwana to Kaithal by driving his Alto Car bearing registration No.HR-05S-1292, near village Shimla a truck bearing registration No.HR-56-3797 being driven by respondent No.3- Kesar Singh (owner and driver of the offending truck) in a rash and negligent manner, struck his car. As a result of which, Kaminder Singh succumbed to the multiple injuries on the spot. Claimants/ appellants filed a claim petition, which was accepted by learned Tribunal, who awarded a FAO No.1981 of 2011 (O&M) 2 sum of Rs.19,40,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal held liable respondent No.3, driver of the alleged truck and the deceased, who was driving the car at the time of accident, equally responsible for causing accident. As such, both the drivers are held liable contributory negligence in the ratio of 50:50. Feeling aggrieved against the finding of contributory negligence, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held liable contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants vehemently opposed the submission, made by learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, by stating that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. There is no dispute regarding the alleged accident. The alleged accident was a head on-collusion between the car being driven by the deceased Kaminder Singh and the truck being driven by respondent No.3. Regarding the said accident, FIR Ex.P8 was lodged. In the said FIR Ex.P8, it is nowhere mentioned as to in what manner the accident was caused. The driver of the truck, who was the best witness to depose the manner in which the alleged accident had taken place has not bothered to appear in the witness box. As far as the appellant Insurance Company, who FAO No.1981 of 2011 (O&M) 3 was the insurer of the truck, is concerned, it did not take any step to examine the driver of the truck. Furthermore, the driver of truck was holding a valid driving licence Ex.R1. The driver was also holding a valid route permit Ex.R6 and did not violate any term and condition of the insurance policy. As a sequel of the above discussion, no interference is warranted in the findings recorded by learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal being bereft of any merit is dismissed in limine. 12.9.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE