FAO No.202 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.202 of 1989 Date of Decision. 07.01.2011 Pritam Kaur wife of Shri Tara Singh, resident of village and post Office Saha, Tehsil and District Ambala and another ......Appellants Versus Som Nath son of Sh. Dhaman Lal Khatrim and others ......Respondents Present: None for the appellants. None for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.4. 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 case is of the year 1989 and the appeal relates to an accident that was said to have taken place in the year 1987. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant when the matter is called. Learned counsel for the respondent is present and I proceed to examine the case on merits with his assistance since it would be meaningless to adjourn the case which is pending for which a long time or to merely dismiss it for default. 2. The petition was made on the basis that the deceased was seen at a dhaba taking tea and the next day, there was a dead body found and one Charanjit Singh was said to have lodged a report with the FAO No.202 of 1989 -2- police. His evidence was that one Som Nath and Gurnam Singh had come to his hotel at Saha Chowk in tractor trolley and they took the deceased with them for repairing their punctured tyre. PW3 was reported to have seen the driver coming back with the tractor after repairing the wheel but only on the next day, PW3 found the dead body of Ravinder Singh dumped near a chowk. He was not himself a witness to any accident but since the deceased was seen last in the company of the driver of the tractor, he gave evidence to the effect that only the tractor must have caused his death. The last scene theory to be applied to a case of accident is rather a dangerous way of appreciation of evidence in a case where there was no definite proof of the involvement of the vehicle and the Tribunal found the evidence to be wholly lacking to enter a finding that the tractor was responsible, especially when the driver of the tractor gave evidence that his vehicle had not at all been involved in the accident. The Tribunal found that the vehicle should have been responsible for the accident but still since there was no proof that there was any rashness or negligence, granted a compensation on no fault basis under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act that was in operation at the time of trial. I will not find any justification for interference with the award. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 07, 2011 Pankaj*