FAO No.188 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.188 of 2011 (O&M) (in MACT No.61 of 2008) Date of decision:7.12.2011 Ram Kanwar @ Ram Kumar ...Appellant Versus Ram Kishan and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the appellant. **** Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) CM No.872 CII of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 41 days in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. FAO No.188 of 2011 The present appeal has been filed by the appellant i.e. owner of the offending Bus bearing registration No.HR55B-9205, assailing the award dated 16.3.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition of the claimant-injured was accepted and the appellant was held liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has misread the evidence led by the appellant and he was FAO No.188 of 2011 (O&M) 2 wrongly held liable to pay the compensation. He has further contended that the bus was insured with the Insurance Company, and, therefore, he should not have been held liable to pay the compensation. He further contended that there is a delay of three months in lodging the FIR, which is also fatal to the case of the appellant. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. Regarding the first contention, the learned Tribunal has recorded a categoric finding that Bhupender and Vinod are separate persons with different paternity, who have been arrayed as respondent No.1 by mentioning alias. Regarding delay in lodging the FIR, the learned Tribunal has observed as under:- “It has also come in evidence that driver and owner of the bus Ram Kumar also tried to settle the matter amicably but lateron when the matter was not settled amicably, then FIR Ex.P4 has been lodged on 13.06.2008 against Bhupender resident of Khandewla. Therefore, in the instant case, lodging of FIR after the expiry of two months and twenty three days is not fatal to the claimant case because the registration number of the offending bus as well as Bhupender has been mentioned in the MLR Ex.P5. Even in medical ruqqa which has been placed on trial court record, the name of the person, who FAO No.188 of 2011 (O&M) 3 accompanied the claimant to General Hospital, Pataudi has been mentioned as Bhupender alongwith registration number of the bus.” The driving licence of Bhupinder was valid for driving motorcycle, scooter, car and Jeep only. He was not authorised to drive the heavy transport vehicle (HTV) at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal has rightly held liable the driver and owner jointly to pay the compensation, which was rightly assessed to be `1,72,300/- to the claimant. As a sequel to the above, no interference is warranted in the well reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, the present appeal fails and is dismissed being bereft of any merit. 7.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE