Union Of India And Others vs Kala Singh And Others on 2 June, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 25]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Of India And Others vs Kala Singh And Others on 2 June, 2011

Bench: K. Kannan

FAO No. 3655 of 2011                                   1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

                                    FAO No. 3655 of 2011
                                    Date of decision June 2, 2011


Union of India and others


                                                       .......   Appellants
                               Versus


Kala Singh and others

                                                       ........Respondents

CORAM:            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN


Present:-         Mr. Nitin Rathee, Advocate and
                  Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate
                  for the appellant.


                        ****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No

2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral).

1. The appeal is by the Union on the ground that the liability apportioned between the Union as the owner of the Army truck and the owner and insurer of a private truck was wrong. The contention on behalf of the Union before the trial was that Army Truck was stationary but the insured's truck dashed against the Army truck on account of his negligent driving and later dashed against a scooter causing his death. This contention on behalf of the Union was rejected by the Tribunal by making reference to the recitals in the FIR lodged by an eye witness that the accident had taken place only when the Army truck turned into the cantonment from the main road suddenly and without any indication on FAO No. 3655 of 2011 2 account of which the insured's truck dashed against the Army vehicle and later again collided with the scooterist. It is a chain of events that had resulted on account of sudden turning of the Army truck although the actual collision was only between the insured's truck and the scooterist. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the Union's truck was not stationary as contended and pointed out to the fact the driver of the Army truck was not even examined to affirm such a contention. The apportionment of liability equally between the Union and the insurer of the private truck was under the circumstances perfectly justified.

2. The award is confirmed and the appeal filed by the Union is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 2, 2011 archana

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court