F.A.O. No. 8325 of 2014 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

F.A.O. No. 8325 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision : October 01, 2014

National Insurance Company Ltd.

....Appellant

versus

Pushpinderjit Kaur and others

....Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh

Present : Mr. S.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant

Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral)

CM No. 22620.CII of 2014

In the light of the averments made in the application which is duly supported by affidavit of the Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company and in the interest of justice, delay of 81 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of.

FAO No. 8325 of 2014

This is an appeal of the insurer of tractor bearing registration No. PB-52-9032 (in short, the Tractor) owned and being driven by respondent Bhupinder Singh which is alleged to have caused accident due to rash and negligent driving on 21.2.2013 with Bolero jeep bearing registration No. PB-32-F-6707 (in short, the Jeep) in the area of village Bahara under Police Station Mukandpur (Punjab) resulting in the death of HC Narinder Singh of the Punjab Police who was aged around 45 years at the time of his death. The main grouse of the appellant is over the findings regarding involvement of the tractor in the accident.

After hearing at length counsel for the appellant, there is categorical finding returned by the Tribunal that though the FIR was registered against un-known driver and subsequently on apprehension of the vehicle it was got identified by the Investigating Officer and there is cogent evidence led by the claimants by way of PW3 Manjit Singh, PW2 Yogesh Kumar who are eye witnesses of the accident and were travelling in the ill fated Bolero as all these police officials were coming from Bathinda after performing special duty. It has been vociferously argued on behalf of the appellant that no such accident has taken place and has sought to place much reliance on the FIR and report under section 173 Cr.P.C. when it is by now well settled preposition of law, reference of which can be taken note of the ratio in the case United India Insurance through its Regional Manager versus Swarn Singh, 1981 (1) PLR 159 and a similar finding of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of R.P.Gautam versus R.N.M.Singh and anr. , AIR 2008 MP 68 wherein it has been held that

neither FIR is pre-requisite for seeking compensation nor is substitute for evidence in compensation cases and Tribunal ought to see evidence led before it and which position of law clearly undermines the case of the appellant who thus is even barred from raking up the plea for allowing it to lead additional evidence under section 41 Rule 27 CPC by way of deducing statements of the eye witness under section 161 Cr.P.C., report under section 173 Cr.P.C., site plan in the criminal investigations. Moreover, there is no substantial cross-examinations of PW eye witness Yogesh Kumar, Manjit Singh before the Tribunal and thus by such recourse appellant cannot be allowed to fill in the lacunae in its case. The owner-cum-driver of the offending tractor have not challenged the findings on issue no. 1 which pertains to the mode of the accident which has held to be on account of rash and negligent driving of Bhupinder Singh.

Even the counsel for the appellant cannot assail the quantum of compensation which has been duly proved documentarily being a police employee and rather the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on the lower side and that no amount has been awarded for the loss of estate, love and affection. Thus, finding no illegality and perversity in the impugned award, the appeal stands dismissed.

( Fateh Deep Singh )

October 01, 2014 Judge 'tiwana'