FAO No. 351 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 2161-CII of 2008 and FAO No. 351 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.01.2010 Mohan Lal @ Mohna ....Appellant Versus Rattan Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Saini, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 2161-CII of 2008 For the reasons stated in the application, CM is allowed and the delay of 159 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No. 351 of 2008 On oral request of respondents No.1 to 3, ex parte proceedings against them are recalled and they are permitted to join the proceedings. This appeal is directed against the award dated 2.3.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur, allowing claim petition moved under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants sought compensation for death of Ms. FAO No. 351 of 2008 -2- Sukhwinder Kaur, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 29.4.2004. The case set up by the claimants was, that on 29.4.2004 at about 9.30 a.m. Sukhwinder Kaur along with her husband Rattan Singh was going on scooter No. PB-18F-932 in the area of village Thirewal, Police Station Rangar Nangal. The appellant, who was driving truck No. DL- 1G/3629, came from the side of Batala. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently by him, which struck against the scooter driven by Rattan Singh from backside. Rattan Singh and his wife fell down, and Sukhwinder Kaur was run over by truck and she died on the spot. FIR No. 35 dated 29.4.2004 was registered against the appellant. The compensation was claimed by the claimants on account of death of Sukhwinder Kaur. On notice, the registered owner chose not to appear and the claim petition was contested only by the appellant-driver, wherein he denied the allegations made in the claim petition. However, subsequently the truck was sold to respondent No.5, who was impleaded as party being present owner of the truck. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal held, that the accident had occurred on 29.4.2004 in the area of Police Station Rangar Nangal, due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant, in which Sukhwinder Kaur died. The claimants were held to be legal representatives and accordingly held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,07,200/- (Rupees three lac seven thousand and two hundred only) along with interest @ 6%. The liability was held to be joint and several between the driver and the owner of the vehicle. The driver filed this appeal on the plea, that the award passed FAO No. 351 of 2008 -3- by the learned Tribunal, deserves to be set aside for the reason, that a false case fastened on the appellant, as no accident was caused by him. The case of the appellant is, that he was arrested from a far off place and involved in this accident. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, that no liability could be fastened on the appellant-driver, as the default was on the part of the owner in not getting the truck insured, as envisaged under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the liability, if any, should have been fastened on the owner, by exonerating the driver. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the fact, that eye witness Rattan Singh had appeared and supported the version of the accident, which was further corroborated by Kuldeep Singh, it cannot be said, that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are bad in law, only because the appellant was arrested from far off place, as he successfully slipped away from the place of accident. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that he was liable to be exonerated, merely because truck was not got insured, is also totally mis-conceived. It is the act of the appellant, which has resulted in payment of compensation to the claimants. The owner is held responsible under the Law of Torts, being responsible for the acts of his servant, therefore, merely because the insurance policy was not taken out by the owner, does not absolve the appellant from the act of accident, as contended. Learned counsel for the appellant also contends, that compensation awarded is on the higher side. FAO No. 351 of 2008 -4- This plea is also totally mis-conceived, as the income assessed of the deceased is only at Rs.2,400/- (Rupees two thousand four hundred only), which cannot be said to be in any way exorbitant so as to interfere with the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal. No ground is made out to interfere with the award passed. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 20, 2010 R.S.