IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1003 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision:12.01.2011 Daulat Ram ....Appellant versus M/s Brij Lal & Sons and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. S.D.Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 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 dismissal of the petition for compensation in a case where the involvement of the vehicle-HRK-914 was said to be made by placing reliance on a report by the forensic lab which was marked in this case as Ex.A3. The Investigating Officer, who had seized the vehicle on suspicion, had sought for a report of presence of human blood in the vehicle. It was not so found. The tyre marks that had been found on the body of the deceased were said to be matched with the tyre that could have ran over her and the report found a similarity of the tyre marks on the deceased person to be proximate to the rear left outer tyre of the truck bearing No.HRK-914. It will be too FAO No.1003 of 1987 (O&M) - 2 - simplistic to rely on this report as establishing the identity of the vehicle that was involved in the accident. In this case, a FIR had been lodged and there was supposed to be an eyewitness for the accident. The eyewitness was not examined. Yet another police officer was also said to be an eyewitness whose evidence was also not before the Tribunal. It was, under these circumstances, that the Tribunal held that the involvement of the insured's truck bearing registration No.HRK-914 had not been established. I cannot find worthwhile material to hold a different view to what was assessed by the Tribunal. 2. The appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 12.01.2011 sanjeev