F.A.O.NO. 5276 OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 5276 OF 2008 Date of decision: 28th July, 2010 Iqbal and another .......Appellants Versus Smt. Babli Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Surinder Saini, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Nishant Raj, Advocate 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 appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle denying the accident alleged to have been caused by collision of Tata Canter goods carriage with cyclist who was the deceased. The accident is said to have taken place on 22.02.2007 and it was spoken to by an eye witness Satish Kumar who was examined before the Tribunal as PW-2. Incidentally, he was also the complainant on the basis of whose complaint, FIR has been registered. The Tribunal found on the basis of the evidence and the fact that criminal case has also been registered that the appellants vehicles was involved in the accident and found also F.A.O.NO. 5276 OF 2008 2 that his vehicle was guilty of negligence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails the finding on the ground that it had come out in evidence that statement was recorded by the police two days after the incident and the vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. The reference to the vehicle was also not made at the hospital where the deceased had been immediately taken. In my view the contentions of the appellants cannot be accepted for the FIR makes it clear reference to the involvement of the vehicle with reference of the registration no. of the vehicle. Satish Kumar has also given evidence that the driver did not immediately stop the vehicle and he parked the vehicle at a little distance and he had run away. This evidence has found acceptance with the Tribunal. I see no reason to differ with finding by the only fact that the police recorded the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. two days later. If there is delay, it would be a matter for different consideration in other proceedings but they are irrelevant, in a summary proceeding. The Tribunal had a basis for its finding that there was an involvement of the vehicle, I see no reason to take a different view. 3. As regards the quantum, the evidence was let in that he was 36 years of age and he was working as a plumber. Evidence was let in that he under took work on contract basis under Public Health Department. The claimant was a widow and a minor child. The deceased was claimed to be earning Rs. 10,000/- per month but the Tribunal had taken the income at F.A.O.NO. 5276 OF 2008 3 Rs. 3,000/-, reckoned the dependency to be Rs. 2,000/- and arrived at a compensation including the conventional heads of claim Rs. 3,69,500/-. The amount is just and there is no reason to interfere even with the quantum. The appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 28th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik