IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.36-CII of 2007 in/and FAO No.2773 of 2007 Date of decision:17.08.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Chattar Singh and another ...Respondents II. FAO No.2774 of 2007 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Amit and others ...Respondents III. FAO No.3993 of 2007 Amit and another ....Appellants versus Mandeep Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO Nos.2773 and 2774 of 2007 and for respondent No.2 in FAO No.3993 of 2007. Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate, for respondent No.1/cross objector in FAO No.2773 of 2007 and for respondents 1 and 2 in FAO No.2774 of 2007 and for appellants in FAO No.3993 of 2007. None for other respondents. ---- FAO No.2773 of 2007 - 2 - 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. All the three appeals and the cross-objection in one of the appeals arise out of the same accident. The appeals by the Insurance Company are on the ground that the insurer's vehicle had not been involved in the accident but the insurer was implicated by an act of collusion of the owner and the claimants. 2. The accident was alleged to have taken place when the insured and the deceased were travelling in a motorcycle and it was alleged to have hit against the insurer's vehicle which was a passenger car 'Qualis' bearing registration No.HR61AD-TP-7555. The contention was that soon after the accident on 16.04.2005 at 10:15 PM Qualis vehicle had driven away without stopping and the injured was taken to the hospital immediately for treatment while yet another person died at the spot. The police did not immediately recover the Qualis vehicle and it could not also take the statement from the injured witness since he was not in a state of health to give any evidence. FIR which had been lodged immediately had merely referred to the fact of a motor accident that resulted in death or injury to a person and had given no indication that it was a Qualis vehicle that had been involved in the accident. 3. The case therefore hinged totally on the ipse dixit of the insured claimant, who contended that the insurer's vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcyclist FAO No.2773 of 2007 - 3 - resulting in the accident. In the cross-examination, it was elicited on behalf of the insurer that there was no street light on the spot but he had still seen the number of the vehicle and driver of the accident as he stopped the vehicle, but he did not know the name of the driver. He merely recalled that he was a Sikh gentleman. The statement from the insured was said to have been taken only on 01.05.2005. 4. The Insurance Company which had the benefit of defence under Section 170 brought on record the fact that the Qualis vehicle which had been subsequently seized was examined by mechanic, who reported “all four wheels of the car O.K., brake O.K., steering O.K., Clutch O.K., engine O.K., Dashboard and seat O.K., head Light O.K. and Indicator, Chassis O.K. and Body, Bonnet, Roof, Mudguard, windows etc.” . The learned counsel for the insurer would contend that the vehicle which had been seized by the police subsequently did not have any dent or any visible evidence that ought to have existed if it was a case of collision which was so serious that it had resulted in the death of a motorcyclist and grievous injury of yet another person travelling in the same. It is also contended by the insurer that the aspect of collusion is so evident that the driver or the owner not merely remained ex parte but they failed to turn up in Court even after the summons had been issued by the Court for their presence. 5. If the incident of the accident and the involvement of the vehicle were to be appraised, it has to only stand on whether it is possible to accept the evidence of the injured witness or not. Evidently it was a case where there was no eye witness and it will be begging the FAO No.2773 of 2007 - 4 - question to demand any ocular evidence if there existed none except the injured witness. It is a pity that the claimant did not think of examining the police who was investigating the case to bring more light as to how they found that Qualis vehicle was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has chosen to accept the evidence of injured witness. If the witness was speaking the truth then the involvement of the vehicle must only be taken as established. I have no better material before me to reappraise the evidence and if I should accept the evidence of the injured witness, I do it because there appears no other method of appraisal of evidence. I would go with the findings of the Tribunal by the only reasoning that it has observed that the insured witness's statement appeared to be true. I rest my reasoning wholly on the evidence of the injured witness and find that the insurer's vehicle was involved in the accident. 6. As regards the compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,09,600/- for the death of the deceased, who was aged 51 years and who was said to be a foreman in Panipat Thermal Plant. The claimants were son and daughters and the Tribunal had provided for 1/3rd deduction for his income, took the contribution to the family as Rs.5,300/- and adopted a multiplier of 11, the choice of multiplier being in tune of what is mentioned in Schedule-II. The Tribunal also added conventional heads of claim and awarded the compensation of Rs.7,09,600/-. The mode of calculation and the amount arrived at seems just and I make no intervention. 7. As regards the injury, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- FAO No.2773 of 2007 - 5 - which included medical bills which had been produced to the tune of Rs.9,320/- and there had been no particular disability shown. The Tribunal had taken note of the fact that he had been inpatient from 17.04.2005 to 20.04.2005 and taking note of the fact that there was no grievous injury, he had awarded Rs.15,000/- in lump sum. I find the same to be again reasonable and would not see an occasion for enhancing the same as sought for by the respective claimants in the case of the death and of injury. The awards of the Tribunal are maintained in full and the appeals by the Insurance Company are dismissed. The cross appeal and the appeal for enhancement at the instance of the representatives of the deceased are also dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 17.08.2010 sanjeev