Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Vikash Sharma Son Of Shri Sita Ram Sharma ... on 2 December, 2010
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.7190 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.7190 of 2010
Date of Decision.02.12.2010
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal
through its Branch Manager, Kaithal insured vide cover note
No.1241441 issued from Branch Office, Kaithal (insurer of offending
Hydra Crane No.HR38F-1726)
......Appellant
Versus
Vikash Sharma son of Shri Sita Ram Sharma aged about 28 years
resident of Model Town, Jind Road, Kaithal and others
......Respondents
Present: Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate
for the appellant.
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. Delay of one day in refiling the appeal is condoned.
2. In the appeal, the only point made is that the claimant came by injuries in a motor accident at a construction site. Learned counsel for the appellant wants the Court to make an inference that the claimant must have been careful and he ought not to have gone through the construction site. Admittedly, the construction was on a public place and there shall be a greater care for a person who is making a construction in a public road to ensure that from their activities, no danger is posed to any member of the public. There must have been arrangements to fend off people from taking entry into the place or to have sufficient indicators for cautioning the FAO No.7190 of 2010 -2- people while entering into the place. I cannot accept any circumspect from a member of the public than what is specifically demanded of a member through express signs made by the person, who is putting up a construction on a public highway. The presumptions, which the counsel argues for, do not simply exist in the realm of public law and the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the insured's vehicle would require no interference.
3. There is no other point argued before me. The appeal is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 02, 2010 Pankaj*