FAO No.1527 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1527 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.05.2011 Satwant Kaur & Ors. ... Appellants Versus Amar Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. S.S. Virk, Advocate, the appellants. ***** 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 against dismissal of the petition filed under Section 163-A claiming compensation against the brother of the deceased who was the owner of the truck and the insurer. The case relates to an accident that took place on 12.09.1993. Originally, an application has been filed for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming that the deceased was a workman under the owner of the truck. The application was originally dismissed and later a fresh application has been filed under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The same case is persisted namely that the deceased was a workman under the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, there was a compulsory insurance cover for the representatives of the deceased. This contention was again rejected by the Tribunal on sifting evidence adduced before it. It held that evidence established that the deceased Surjit Singh was running a joint transport business with his four brothers including FAO No.1527 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the owner of the truck arrayed as first respondent. It was elicited that his four brothers were residing in the same house as a joint family. The Tribunal found that the deceased although was not a registered owner, he was a co- owner of the business running by the deceased and the other brothers. 2. Learned counsel states that a person having a joint business with his brothers could still be appointed as workman in the joint business. I do not find this argument to be acceptable for a person cannot be a workman and a co-owner in the business at the same time. The dismissal of the petition has been made on an appropriate analysis of the evidence led before it and I do not find any scope for modification. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. MAY 25, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE