FAO No.3382 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3382 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 3.7.2009 Balbir Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Surjit Kaur and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.15094-CII of 2009 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.15095-CII of 2009 CM is allowed. Documents are taken on record. FAO No.3382 of 2009(O&M) The appellants who are owner and driver of the offending tractor, respectively, have filed this appeal challenging the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACT Case No.54 of 2007 wherein it has been held that Natha Singh (predecessor-in-interest of claimant-respondents No.1, 6, 7 and 8 died in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor trolley by appellant No.2 and further held that the appellants were liable to pay a compensation of Rs.2,64,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per month from the date of order till its realization. Challenging the aforesaid award, counsel for the appellants FAO No.3382 of 2009(O&M) 2 has vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has erred at law while holding that the tractor of the appellants was not insured. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the vehicle was got duly insured with respondent No.2. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon cover note No.999130 dated 10.3.2006 (attached as Annexure A1 with the appeal) according to which the offending tractor was got insured on 10.3.2006 after payment of premium for a period of one year upto 10.3.2007. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the claimant-respondents have failed to prove by cogent evidence the fact that Natha Singh died due to rash and negligent driving of appellant No.2 and mere registration of an FIR against the appellants does not prove the rashness or negligence of appellant No.2 and thus, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record of the appeal. The Tribunal on appreciation of documentary as well as oral evidence brought on record by the claimants has recorded a finding of fact that Natha Singh died due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by appellant No.2. Admittedly, the appellants have not produced any rebuttal evidence in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to point out any evidence on record to challenge the finding of the Tribunal in this regard. The counsel could not point out any material evidence on record which was ignored by the Tribunal while returning the finding against the appellants. While recording the finding on the question whether the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 or not, the Tribunal has recorded a finding on the basis of evidence on record produced by respondent No.2 that the insurance cover note (Annexure A- 1) issued to the appellant was cancelled later on due to non payment of the FAO No.3382 of 2009(O&M) 3 premium amount of the insurance policy. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to challenge the testimony of RW-2 Bikramjit Singh Jolly who had clearly stated that the appellants did not pay premium of cover note in dispute as the appellants asked for revocation of the said cover note in dispute on the ground that they wanted to get their vehicle insured with some other company. Even otherwise, admittedly the appellants have not placed on record any evidence to prove the fact that they had paid the premium amount for insurance of their vehicle to respondent No.2 or any Insurance Policy was issued to them on the basis of cover note Annexure A-1.. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. July 3, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE