FAO No. 1809 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1809 of 1993 Date of decision February 9 , 2011 Mohan Singh ....... Appellant Versus Kulminder Kaur and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Amandeep Saini , Advocate for Mr. M. L. Saini, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. **** 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 appeal is against the award passed against the owner of the vehicle PUV-9939. The contention at the trial was that the first respondent Chur Singh was driving the said vehicle. The contention of the owner was that Chur Singh was a driver of PCH-5251 and the vehicle involved in the accident was only PCH-5251 which had been insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. The fact of insurance of the truck PCH-5251 was itself not denied. The driver admitted that he was driving PCH-5251 only but he was contending that the deceased was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The first respondent was made liable only by the fact that FIR was lodged two days after the accident. The number of the vehicle was given as PUV-9939. The person who had given the complaint was PW-3 and he was cross examined with reference to his own knowledge of English alphabets and he admitted that he knew only Punjabi and did not know English. The counsel therefore wanted to FAO No. 1809 of 1993 2 contend that the vehicle number was wrongly given at the instance of the police and the claim could have been awarded only against the owner of the truck PCH-5251 which was admitted to have been driven by Chur Singh and which was also admitted as having been involved in the accident. I have already pointed out that the vehicle PCH-5251 has been insured with the Insurance Company at the relevant time of the accident. A mere reference to the appellant's vehicle in the FIR ought not to have been taken as concluding the issue of it involvement, especially in this case where the appellant as a owner of the vehicle had given evidence admitting to the involvement of the vehicle which he was driving and the fact that the said vehicle had also been insured being not a matter of contention at the trial. It assumes significance that PW-3 was himself illiterate and the reference to the registration number in the FIR seems suspect. 2. The finding of the Tribunal referring to the involvement of the appellant's vehicle is set aside and would find the respondent Nos.1,3 and 4 before the Tribunal as liable for the accident to satisfy the award jointly and severally. Respondent No.4 before the Tribunal as an insurer shall be liable to indemnify the claim for the insured. If the amount has been recovered under the award by the claimants, the right of recovery in restitution shall avail to the appellant only against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle bearing No. PCH-5251 and not against the claimants. The appeal is allowed but subject to observations made above. If any amount has been deposited at the Appellate Court and if it is still available the same shall be returned to the appellant. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 9, 2011 archana