FAO No. 1464 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1464 of 2006 Decided on : 18-12-2008 Harjit Singh and another ....Appellants VERSUS Suresh Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. S.K.Sharma Budhladawala, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the award dated 14.6.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur. The appellant no.2 who is the owner of the vehicle has challenged the award to contend that he had denied the factum of accident yet the Tribunal had come to an erroneous conclusion that accident had been caused by vehicle which belongs to him. It was next contended that the injured who was driving the motor cycle was not having a valid driving licence and it was purely because of his negligence that the accident had been caused. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the award, I am of the considered opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are mis-placed. Initially the appellants had denied the factum of accident but this is belied by the fact that appellant no.1 was challaned by the police and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was submitted against him implying thereby that the police on the basis of FAO No. 1464 of 2006 2 independent investigation has concluded the complicity of the driver- appellant no.1 and involvement of the vehicle belonging to the appellant. The proceedings before the Tribunal being in the shape of an inquiry do not warrant any strict evidence and if a person has been challaned it is sufficient indicator of the involvement of the vehicle in question. Since the appellants have denied the involvement of their vehicle in the accident, the witnesses produced by them in support of this plea were also disbelieved by the Tribunal although for different reasons. There is no material on record from which it would be inferred that either the appellant's vehicle was not involved or that he was not negligent in driving his vehicle. Therefore, finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. In so far as second contention is concerned, it is the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle which is to be seen. In view of the fact that a categoric finding has been recorded by the Tribunal holding the driver of the offending vehicle to be negligent and in the absence of any material to the contrary, I am of the considered opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant does not merit any attention. The factum regarding invalidity of the driving licence of the victim is of no consequence. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. An amount of Rs.25,000/- which has been deposited before this Court as a measure of compliance of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act be remitted to the Tribunal for onward disbursal to the claimants. December 18 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge