FAO No.842 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.842 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: February 16, 2011 VINOD KUMAR AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SMT. KAMAL KUTTAPAN AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: NONE FOR APPELLANTS. MR. NEERAJ KHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR MR.DEEPAK SURI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1TO 3. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5. MR. KUNAL GARG, AAG, HARYANA FOR RESPONDENT NO.6. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) The appeal is against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat in MACT Case No.6 of 1987. It is filed at the instance of of the owner and the insurer. The joint appeal by the owner and the insurer is not maintainable in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chinnama George vs. N.K. Raju and another, reported as (2000) 4 SCC 130. Even if this appeal were to be taken to be prosecuted at the instance of the insurer only by transposing the insurer as respondent, even then the issue of compensation cannot be reviewed again in view of the fact that this Court has taken up the appeal against the very same award in FAO FAO No.842 of 1991 -2- No.114 of 1989 and disposed off on 10.11.2001. By the judgement rendered by this Court, it has already been held that the amount determined by the Tribunal was correct and it would not require any modification. Consequently, the appeal by the owner and the insurer is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. February 16, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE