FAO No.7232 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.7232 of 2010 Date of Decision.13.12.2010 Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Shankar Nagar and another ......Appellants Versus Mithun Kumar son of Shri Laxmi Poddar and another ......Respondents Present: Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the owner and driver of the vehicle in which the injured and deceased persons were travelling. The vehicle is said to have hit against a stationary truck, which was not impleaded as party. The Tribunal held that the persons, who were travelling in the vehicle were in a goods carriage and therefore, they were not entitled to a cover of insurance from the insured's insurance company. Under these circumstances, the liability was cast wholly on the appellants. 2. Learned counsel would point out to two aspects. One, that the passengers were owners of goods travelling along with the goods carriage and therefore, the insurer must have been made liable and two, the right of enforcement must have been made for the appellant also against the owner of the stationary vehicle, which was negligently parked in a portion of the road without adequate indicators. In my FAO No.7232 of 2010 -2- view, both these contentions ought to fail. 3. There was no reference anywhere in the evidence of PW6 that he was the owner of the goods and he was travelling along with the goods. On the other hand, the evidence which has been brought out in the judgment itself is that he was going along with his son to a Mandir at Dwarka and the accident had taken place. There is no reference about any goods as having been transported in the vehicle. Even as regards the other contention that the accident had taken place only on account of negligent parking of a stationary vehicle, it cannot avail to the appellants to take up such a contention in a claim made by a passenger in a vehicle. As far as the passenger was concerned, it was at worst a case of composite negligence and the claimant was entitled to make any one of the joint tort feasors party and seek for recovery of the claim against any one of them. If the appellant had at any time thought that the impleadment of the owner of the stationary vehicle was also necessary, it must have been done at their instance by seeking for impleadment before the Tribunal. The non-joinder of a joint tort feasor is not fatal to the proceedings and therefore, this was not again a ground which is available to the appellants. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 13, 2010 Pankaj*