FAO No.5841 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5841 of 2011 Date of Decision : 13.09.2011 Jagtar Singh and another .......Appellants Versus Pooja and another .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Raghubir Tejpal, Advocate, for the appellants. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The appeal in hand has been preferred against the impugned Award dated 30.04.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, whereby, the compensation to the tune of `2,67,500/- had been granted to the claimant, and the Insurance Company was granted recovery rights against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of the parties as two vehicles, i.e., Tempo and Tanker were involved in the accident, therefore, the driver of the tempo was a necessary party. The further assertion of the learned counsel is that recovery rights were given to the Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle was being plied without the 1 FAO No.5841 of 2011 route permit, which in the given case, cannot be sustained. He submits that no goods were being carried at the time of the accident and the vehicle being empty, no route permit was required in the instant case. In the statement of the claimant, PW1, by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, it has specifically come that the tempo was being driven by Safiq, at a moderate speed. The accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker bearing No.HR31-2225. The number of the vehicle and the name of the driver of the offending vehicle is duly reflected in the FIR. From the statement of PW2, Munish Kumar, Ahlmad, it is proved that a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the appellant, and Jagtar Singh driver is facing criminal trial regarding the accident in question. Keeping in view the fact that the evidence led by the claimant is fully in consonance with the version given by the claimant, PW1, no fault can be found with the findings reached by the learned Tribunal. The claimant, who is aged 18 years, suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60%, which is duly proved from the statements of Jai Parkash, PW4, and Dr. Ritesh Singh, PW5, and the disability certificate, Ex.P5. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the well-reasoned Award dated 30.04.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the present appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. 2 FAO No.5841 of 2011 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 13.09.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 3