FAO No. 1377 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 1377 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.5.2010 M/s Ankit Automobiles ..... Appellant vs Smt. Reshma Devi and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The owner of the offending vehicle is before this Court challenging the award dated 12.12.2009, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the appellant along with driver- respondent no. 5, was held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. Briefly, the facts are that on 21.3.2006 at about 8.00 p.m., Laxman Dass was going towards Ladwa from Radaur on motorcycle no. HR-02G-2896. One Dharam Pal, resident of Village Potli was following him on his separate motorcycle. When he reached near Peer Baba ki Mazar in the area of Village Kheri Dabadlan on Radaur-Ladwa Road, a three wheeler bearing temporary registration no. TEMP-282-MH-14, driven by respondent no. 5 in a rash and negligent manner, came from Ladwa side and hit the motorcycle of Laxman Dass. As a result of this, Laxman Dass fell down on the road and he was run over by the three wheeler. He died at the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot. FIR No. 47 dated 21.3.2006 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered by the Police of Police Station, Ladwa on the statement of Dharam Pal. The claimants filed claim petition which was allowed by the learned Tribunal. The appellant and respondent no. 5 were held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the authorised dealer. It had sold the offending vehicle to one Khurshad Ali vide invoice no. 37 dated 21.3.2006 i.e. on the date when the accident took place and therefore, the appellant is not liable to satisfy the award and finding recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on imagination and not on the facts of the case. It was further submitted that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal to the claimant is also on higher side. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the FAO No. 1377 of 2010 -2- deceased was working as constable in the police. He was also getting pension being an ex-serviceman. The son of the deceased has been appointed as constable on compassionate grounds, therefore, the family now cannot be considered as dependent of the deceased. It was prayed that compensation granted by the learned Tribunal be reduced. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book. The death of Laxman Dass is not in dispute. The dispute is only with regard to the ownership of the offending vehicle. The case set up by the appellant is that he had sold the three-wheeler in question to one Khurshad Ali on 21.3.2006. But when he was cross-examined, he could not give the details of the payments. As has been rightly held by the learned Tribunal that no dealer would allow a purchaser to take delivery of an automobile on payment of token amount of just Rs. 40,000/- merely on a promise that rest of the amount he would pay later on. It is also not the case of the appellant that Kurshad Ali was his close relative or close friend to whom he has given the automobile on part payment. The driver of the offending vehicle in his cross-examination admitted that he was deputed to fetch three wheeler from Gurgaon by Ankit Automobile, Jagadhri (appellant). The vehicle in question was sent to the dealer at Jagadhri by M/s Bajaj Tempo. Ltd., Gurgaon and it was in the name of appellant company. As the same was not sold to anybody, therefore, it could not be insured. Now the appellant, after the accident, by saying that it is not the owner of the vehicle in question, which is approximately of Rs. 1,50,000/-, wants to escape from its liability to satisfy the award which is more than Rs. 6 lacs. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellants before this court shall be transferred to the learned Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. As far as assessment of compensation is concerned, it cannot be said that the same is on higher side considering the age and dependency of the deceased. Upholding of award in the appeal by the owner will not prejudice the appeal, if any, filed by the claimants, which shall be considered on its own merits. 5.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge