FAO No.3733 of 2009 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.3733 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : December 14, 2009 Nirdosh Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Dev Gurinder Jit Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ramandeep Singh Pandher, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vivek Singhal, Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The appellant – Nirdosh Singh (herein referred as `the appellant') has challenged the award dated 4.5.2009 passed against him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tarn Tarn (herein referred as `the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,29,600/- along with interest to claimant – respondent Dev Gurvinder Jit Singh (herein referred as `the claimant') on account of having suffered multiple injuries in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 24.4.2005. In the instant case, the Driver and the Insurance Company were exonerated, whereas, the liability was fastened upon the owner. Brief resume of facts is that on the aforesaid date at 3.20 PM, FAO No.3733 of 2009 (O&M) [ 2 ] the claimant, after alighting his father Rachh Pal Singh near Khalsa College, Sarhali, had started on motor cycle No.PH-46-3475 towards Tarn Tarn side. However, when he had just covered 50-60 yards, a Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.PB-02AC-5773 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.3 Kanwar Gurbir Singh came from behind and hit the Motor Cycle, as a result of which he received multiple grievous injuries. The claimant was removed to the Civil Hospital, Tarn Tarn, from where, he was referred to Munni Lal Chopra Hospital, Amritsar. First Information Report was also lodged in this regard. As an aftermath of the accident, the claimant filed the claim petition, which was contested by the appellant as well as respondents no.2 and 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether applicant Dev Gurvinder Jit Singh received injuries in a roadside accident on account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car No.PB02-AC-5773 by Kanwar Gurbir Singh, respondent No.1 on 24.4.2005? OPA 2. If Issue No.1 is proved, whether the applicant is entitled to receive compensation. If so, how much and from whom? OPA 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident. If so, to what effect? OPR-3 4. Relief.” Both the parties led their evidence and ultimately, the award FAO No.3733 of 2009 (O&M) [ 3 ] was passed against the appellant. Heard counsel for the parties. The sole contention raised on behalf of the appellant (owner of the offending vehicle) is that the Tribunal fell in error while holding him liable to pay the compensation, without concluding as to who was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In the instant case, at the initial stage, Rachhpal Singh (AW3 – an eye witness to the incident) had stated that the offending vehicle was being driven by Kanwar Gurbir Singh. However, later on, he rectified stating during investigation that in fact, one Anokh Singh was driving the offending vehicle, while Kanwar Gurbir Singh – respondent No.3 was sitting besides him on the front seat. In the criminal case as well, Anokh Singh was challaned. However, the application moved by the claimant to implead Anokh Singh as respondent in the claim petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.2.2009, which attained finality, having not been challenged in any higher court. In any case, in view of the definite evidence that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.PB-02AC-5773, the appellant being owner of the same, could be held vicariously liable. In the circumstances of the case, it is observed that since the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and the injuries on the person of the claimant were proved, the identity of driver, which is a disputed question of fact, need not be gone into. Admittedly, the offending vehicle FAO No.3733 of 2009 (O&M) [ 4 ] was owned by the appellant and it has been proved on record that it was driven rashly and negligently, which resulted into collusion with the motor cycle of the claimant. The appellant, being the owner of the offending vehicle is certainly liable for the wrongful act of his driver. It is not his case, if the offending vehicle was stolen by Anokh Singh or Kanwar Gurbir Singh. Thus, the Tribunal rightly held him liable to pay the compensation. No other point was raised. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. December 14, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE