FAO No.1800 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1800 of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: December 15, 2010 M/S UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS SAJJAN SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. RAJ KUMAR BASHAMBOO, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. Both these appeals are at the instance of the insurance company challenging the issue of negligence in a case where the insurance company had a benefit of defence under Section 170. 2. The insured's vehicle admittedly was involved in the accident colliding with a truck which was driven by the deceased. The cleaner of the other truck also died. The claimants were representatives of the driver and the cleaner. A case had been registered against the insured driver for alleged negligent driving. 3. Learned counsel would contend that in case of collision the claimants had placed no evidence at all, except to rely upon the FIR and the fact that a criminal case had been lodged. But according to him the deceased driver himself was responsible for the accident and if at all the FAO No.1800 of 1998 -2- Court should have found that the deceased driver had contributed to the accident, the Tribunal could not have found the insured truck to be wholly responsible. In consideration now to a case of an accident that had taken place in the year 1997, if the matter could be re-examined only on the issue of negligence I would give benefit to the appellant. If the driver of the insured truck had himself examined and offered evidence on how the accident took place it would have meant all the difference, for, he would have been the only most competent witness to speak about the nature of accident. It must be remembered that the both driver and the cleaner of the other truck had died in the accident and therefore, the evidence of the driver of the insured truck would have been relevant to ascertain the issue of negligence. 4. As far as the insurer is concerned, it cannot be a matter of adversarial litigation. The attempt must have been to place before Court the appropriate evidence for a Tribunal to assess the relevant issues. If the insurer could not place the evidence of its own driver, I shall not entertain the plea at the appellate stage that the Tribunal ought to have not found the insured's driver as responsible for the accident. 5. The award of the Tribunal shall, therefore, be sustained an the appeal by the insurer is dismissed. December 15, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE