FAO No.446 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.446 of 1997 Date of Decision.14.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, having its Regional Office at Chandigarh through its Asstt. Manager .........Appellant Versus Paramjit Kaur alias Parminder Kaur widow of Jaswinder Singh (deceased) and others .......Respondents Present: Mr.Sanjeev Pabbi, 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 in appeal denying the liability on the ground that the insurer's vehicle had not been involved at all in the accident. The only reliance was that in the FIR lodged, there was no reference to the registration of the truck. The FIR had merely referred to a person as having been run over and the details of the particular truck were not available. The Tribunal still found the insurer's vehicle as having been responsible for the accident by reference to a witness PW-3, who said that he had seen a number plate at the spot, later, when he went on a search for the missing person, who was found to be dead and handed over the number plate to the police. There was also yet another witness PW-2, who spoke about the fact that he saw the truck hitting the deceased, who was driving the scooter and gave a hot chase in his own vehicle but had to stop after a short distance since his vehicle did not have FAO No.446 of 1997 -2- sufficient fuel. In this case, there is clear evidence of two witnesses but on the respondent's side, a person who claimed to have been a driver Resham Singh gave evidence to deny the accident but the Tribunal held that the Resham Singh himself could not have been the driver since as per R-3, the driver's name had been mentioned as Pardeep Singh. It is also observed that Resham Singh could never have gone after the accident on the truck. The owner attempted to show through a certificate issued by Truck Union that the particular truck had been engaged in some other duty of loading and unloading at FCI godown at Phillaur. The Tribunal found the certificate to be false since the person who had issued the certificate was not examined. Even the claim by the owner that the vehicle was transporting wheat stock was found to be not true since admittedly log sheet did not contain such reference of loading and unloading on that day. The Tribunal has given as many as 11 reasons as to why this certificate cannot be true and I do not need to replicate them. I am convinced that the Tribunal has applied its mind and after analyzing the evidence threadbare, took the decision that the vehicle had been involved in the accident. 2. The claim of the insurance company that the insured's vehicle was not involved in the accident is rejected. The award passed by the Tribunal is, under the circumstances, perfectly justified. There is no scope for interference in appeal. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 14, 2010 Pankaj*