F.A.O.NO. 3675 OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 3675 OF 2008 Date of decision: 15th July, 2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ......Appellant Versus Parkash Kaur and others .......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the fact of the accident and the quantum. It is vehemently contended that the accident was alleged to have taken place on 26.04.2006, the FIR was lodged on 8.05.2006 which did not give even the name of the driver. The case was that the deceased had died nearly a month after the accident on 21.05.2006 and F.A.O.NO. 3675 OF 2008 2 the FIR had been lodged by the son of the deceased. In this case it must be noticed that the FIR makes a mention of the vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-07E-1068 involved in the accident. 2. The Tribunal upheld the claim of the claimant on the ground that the son of the deceased had given evidence that the vehicle of the first respondent had been involved and the driver had driven it rashly and negligently. It took note of the fact that the driver had not examined himself to deny through evidence the negligence attributed to him. There was appropriate legal reasoning adopted by the Tribunal for effect of the non- examination of the driver and drew out an adverse inference against the owner of the driver. The fact that the FIR was delayed is not relevant in a case where the person who has died subsequently but still alive soon after the accident and the explanation given by the son for the delay was that his father was taken for treatment and therefore, he did not give the complaint immediately. 3. Learned counsel also points out that in the statement alleged to have been given before the Doctor that the deceased was reported to have fallen from the tractor and not run over by the tractor. If any credibility must be attached to the alleged statement to the doctor, he must have been examined to elicit from him what the deceased was reported to have told him. The document was merely produced before Court but not exhibited as documentary evidence. I do not therefore, give any credence to the recital in the said document. 4. The award granted under the circumstances is F.A.O.NO. 3675 OF 2008 3 justified. I affirm the award of the Tribunal and the appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 15th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik