FAO Nos.5816 to 5819 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.5816 of 2010 (O&M) (in MACT No.127 of 2006) Date of decision:22.11.2011 Jaspreet Singh Grewal ....Appellant Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others ...Respondents 2. FAO No.5817 of 2010 (O&M) (in MACT No.128 of 2006) Jaspreet Singh Grewal ....Appellant Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others ...Respondents 3. FAO No.5818 of 2010 (O&M) (in MACT No.142 of 2006) Jaspreet Singh Grewal ....Appellant Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others ...Respondents 4. FAO No.5819 of 2010 (O&M) (in MACT No.126 of 2006) Jaspreet Singh Grewal ....Appellant Versus FAO Nos.5816 to 5819 of 2010 (O&M) 2 United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Arun Kaundal, Advocate for the appellants in all the appeals. Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1-Insurance Company in all the appeals. ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) Heard. Delay in filing the appeals is condoned. This judgment shall dispose of four appeals i.e. FAO Nos. 5816 to 5819 of 2010, having arisen out of the same accident and same award dated 31.3.2010, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short 'the Tribunal'). All these appeal have been filed by the same appellant i.e. owner of the offending Jeep bearing registration No. HRK-4491, assailing the aforesaid award, vide which, the claim petitions of the claimants were allowed and he was held liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. Shortly put, the facts of the case are that on 8.3.2006, at 1.18 A.M., Harbhajan Singh alongwith Amrinder Singh and Alok Anand was going to Guru Nanak Engineering College at village Gill from the side of village Dugri in a Jeep bearing registration No. HRK-4491 being driven by Kulwinder Dhiman. The said Jeep struck with a pipe meant for closing railway crossing. Resultantly, all of them, sustained multiple, simple and grievous injuries. Harbhajan Singh, Alok Anand and Kulwinder Dhiman FAO Nos.5816 to 5819 of 2010 (O&M) 3 succumbed to their injuries. Amarinder Singh was rushed to Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana. The claimants filed four separate claim petitions, which were consolidated, having arisen out the same accident and decided by a common award by the learned Tribunal. All the four claim petitions were accepted and the appellant, who was the owner of the offending Jeep, was held liable to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held liable the appellant to pay the amount of compensation. He further contends that the appellant was not the owner of the offending Jeep at the time of accident. He had already sold the said jeep to one Mr.Amarinder Singh, who is the victim of the said accident, vide affidavit No.117695, dated 1.12.2005, prior to the alleged accident. He further contends that the said Jeep was insured with respondent No.1 and in this regard, he produced Mark 'A', the photocopy of the insurance cover note. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company contends that the vehicle in question was not insured with the respondent-Insurance Company, in the face of the document produced by the appellant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held the appellant liable. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that Mark A is a photocopy of the insurance cover note. It is a manually prepared document. On Mark A, no policy number is mentioned and it is not duly stamped with FAO Nos.5816 to 5819 of 2010 (O&M) 4 stamp of `1. Further more it does not bear any official stamp. Moreover, no place, address and number of issuing office has been mentioned on it. In this regard, the learned Tribunal has observed as under: “There is absolutely nothing on record, which may prove a fact that respondent company had ever issued any policy in favour of the claimant. Since the policy on record could not be proved to be a genuine one by the claimants, the responsibility to pay cannot be fastened on the insurance company. Though the learned counsel for the claimants and respondent No.1 grilled respondent's witness to the maximum and tried to extract something out of his but absolutely of no avail. The facts were so glaringly apparent and clear. On a fake and false policy set up by claimants, liability to make compensation cannot be laid on the respondent company.” Regarding the issue that the appellant has sold the offending vehicle to one Mr.Amarinder Singh, the learned Tribunal has observed as under:- “The onus to prove this issue was on respondent No.1 (hereinbefore appellant). He did not lead any evidence on this score. His assertion that he had sold the jeep in question to Amrinder Singh son of Surinder Singh, who is a surviving injured in the accident in question remained unproved on record. He sold his vehicle vide affidavit No.11795 dated 1.12.2005. He did not produce FAO Nos.5816 to 5819 of 2010 (O&M) 5 this affidavit on record nor he turned up in the witness box to assert a fact that he had sold this vehicle to Amrinder Singh. His assertions in the written statement clearly at least certify a fact that he was owner of jeep in question at the relevant time, though at the fag end of the trial he had filed an application that since he is not the registered owner of the vehicle in question, he be absolved of his liability and registered owner be impleaded as a party, but his assertion was not accepted. Even his first assertion that let Amrinder Singh be impleaded as party was too spurned and declined. Therefore, this issue is bound to be decided against respondent No.1. It is decided accordingly against respondent No.1.” As a sequel of the above, no interference is warranted in the well reasoned findings recorded by learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeals i.e. FAO Nos. 5816 to 5819 of 2010, being bereft of any merit, are dismissed in limine. 22.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE