IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2827 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:20.09.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Karambir Singh and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.S.Longia, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 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 liability on the ground that the insured's vehicle had not been involved at all in the accident. The claim arose out of death of a child, aged 5 years, and the accident was said to have taken place on 27.05.1998. In the FIR, the vehicle number given was HR41-3710. Again in the hospital records, reference had been to the same vehicle number. However, when the case was filed, a change in vehicle number was made and the insured's vehicle bearing No.HR37-5610 was said to have been involved in the accident. The contention of the learned counsel for the insurer is that there was no proper attempt made to reconcile the differences. The Tribunal, however, rejected the contention by the only fact that the claimant was illiterate FAO No.2827 of 2000 (O&M) - 2 - and he did not know the correct number and he had given wrong bus number when it was noted down to him by the conductor of the bus and he had given the details. The Tribunal further reasoned that the police itself challaned only the driver Gurcharan Singh, who was driving Bus No.HR37-5610 and it was incumbent on respondent to examine at least the conductor of the bus, but it was not done so. It found again that Gurcharan Singh, respondent No.1, was driving the vehicle and held him as responsible for the accident. The fact that the criminal case was against a particular driver was definitely relevant. In this case, the mistake with reference to the registration number of the vehicle appears to have come about by the illiteracy of the claimant. 2. It was also contended by the insurer that the driver was having a heavy goods vehicle licence when he was actually driving a heavy passenger vehicle. Both of them are transport vehicles and they ought to make no difference for the insurer. Even the form of licence prescribed under Section 10 merely refers to a single category as a transport vehicle and makes no difference between a heavy goods vehicle and a heavy passenger vehicle. The said plea is also rejected. 3. The Tribunal has considered the factual situation and determined a compensation of Rs.62,000/- for the death of a child. Even at the time of admission, the Tribunal has directed 50% of the amount to be deposited and had also allowed the claimant to withdraw the same. The amount involved was also not high and the Insurance Company ought not to be preferred an appeal against this award for a modest compensation for the death of a child especially when the Tribunal stated FAO No.2827 of 2000 (O&M) - 3 - on appreciation of evidence that it was only the insured's vehicle which was involved in the accident. 4. It appears that the amount of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited at the time of preferring the appeal, the same may be transmitted to the Tribunal and if the amount has not been paid in full, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same in part satisfaction of the claim. If, on the other hand, the amount already has been paid and full satisfaction has been recorded, the insurer shall be at liberty to withdraw the same. 5. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 20.09.2010 sanjeev