FAO No.1070 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1070 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 12.11.2009 Ram Avtar ......Appellant(s) Versus Raj Kumar @ Billu & others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.19154-55-CII of 2009 CMs are allowed subject to all just exceptions. FAO No.1070 of 2008(O&M) This is owner's appeal challenging the impugned award whereby the appellant has been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants being registered owner of the offending vehicle. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant was a registered owner of the offending jeep and also there is no material to indicate that the Authorities were informed about the sale of Jeep in favour of respondent No.6 yet the fact remains that the appellant had sold the vehicle to the aforesaid respondent. However,the appellant could not produce any evidence on record of the Tribunal as he was proceeded against ex parte and was never served and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside against him. I have perused the impugned award. Nothing could be indicated on the basis of which the findings of the Tribunal could be controverted. However, I find that appellant has given the same address in the memo of appeal as given in the claim FAO No.1070 of 2008(O&M) 2 petition. Not only this, this appeal has been filed without placing on record any certified copy of the impugned award which is required to be placed under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC. Moreover, the appeal has been filed after a delay of 992 days of the expiry of the period of limitation along with an application for condonation of delay. The only reason given in this application is that he came to know about the impugned award when the Tehsildar came to the village for execution of the impugned award and therefore, the delay is liable to be condoned. There is nothing on record to support the averments made by the appellant in the application for condonation of delay and the grounds of this appeal or the contentions as raised. It may also be pointed out here that this appeal was filed on 1.3.2008 and came for arguments on 8.4.2008 for preliminary hearing. However, unable to support his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant had sought adjournment and thereafter, this appeal was never argued on merits and continued to be adjourned till 28.5.2009. On that date again it was stated before this Court that matter has been settled between the parties and adjournment was sought to seek instructions in this regard. On 3.11.2009, the following order was passed: “This appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the impugned award. This appeal is pending since its filing in March, 2008 and has not been argued. In between, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had stated before this Court that a compromise was effected between the parties and he had moved an application in this regard which could not be listed. I find that no such compromise is forthcoming on FAO No.1070 of 2008(O&M) 3 record and instead, the appellant has filed an application to place on record some order passed in the execution proceedings. Again, an adjournment has been sought on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant citing his personal difficulty. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 2009. It is made clear that the appeal shall be argued on the date fixed irrespective of the fact whether any compromise has taken place or not.” Today vide Civil Misc. Application Nos.19154-55-CII of 2009, an order dated 11.4.2009 passed by the Tribunal in execution of the impugned award has been placed on record which has no bearing on the merits of this appeal. The said order is with regard to satisfaction of the Execution of the award and does not talk of any compromise. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed being time barred and on merits as well. November 12, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE