In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... (1) F.A.O. No.1649 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:30.5.2008 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .....Appellant v. Smt. Najiran and others .....Respondents .... (2) F.A.O. No.1650 of 2008 ..... The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .....Appellant v. Alimuddin alias Muddin and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of F.A.O. No.1649 and 1650 of 2008 as they arise out of the same accident that occurred on 2.10.2003 and the appeals have been filed by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh. A sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the offending Tata-407 vehicle was not driven by Shamsher Singh-respondent and in fact it was being driven by Ikrumuddin. It is submitted that the criminal case has been registered against Ikrumuddin who is also facing criminal prosecution. It is contended F.A.O. Nos.1649 of 2008 etc. [2] that the claimants colluded with the respondents and wrongly alleged that the vehicle was driven by Shamsher Singh as Ikrumuddin was under age and, therefore, could not drive the vehicle and neither was he having a valid driving licence. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be noticed that in both the cases in the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (`Tribunal' – for short) the issue that has been framed is to the effect whether the deceased and the petitioner sustained injuries due to a road side accident on account of the rash and/or negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No.1 which is owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 (appellant). There is no issue to the effect as to whether the offending vehicle was being driven by Shamsher Singh (respondent No.1) before the Tribunal or by Ikrumuddin. Neither has any plea been taken by the Insurance Company that the claim petition filed by the respective claimants were bad or defective for non-joinder of necessary parties or for misjoinder of Shamsher Singh as a party. The learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence and material on record found no merit in the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that the vehicle was being driven by Ikrumuddin. It was held that in view of the eye witness account in respect of the accident which was there from the testimony of PW-1 Alimuddin and PW-Zakir Hussain, there was no ground to hold that Shamsher Singh (respondent No.1) was not the driver of the offending vehicle. It was noticed that Zakir Hussain, the owner of the vehicle neither denied the employment of Shamsher Singh as driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident nor pleaded that Ikrumuddin, the F.A.O. Nos.1649 of 2008 etc. [3] cleaner of the vehicle was on the wheels of the vehicle at the time of accident. It was held that Shamsher Singh (respondent No.1) before the Tribunal was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The learned Tribunal having reached the conclusion that Shamsher Singh was the driver of the offending vehicle, there is nothing on record to dislodge the said finding reached at by the Tribunal. This is more so for the reason that no issue has been framed and no plea of non-joinder or misjoinder of necessary parties having been raised. Consequently, there is no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. May 30, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No