F.A.O.NO. 218 OF 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 218 OF 1993 Date of decision:8th February, 2011 Varinder Kumar .......Appellant Versus Shri Ranbir Singh and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the award for compensation in a case where it was urged that the vehicle had been damaged and as owner he was entitled to recover the amount. The accident was not denied. There had also been assessment to the damage through the surveyor. The petition was however, dismissed by the inability of the claimant to establish its ownership and damage F.A.O.NO. 218 OF 1993 2 to the vehicle. 2. Section 166(1)(b) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') requires an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the Act shall be made by the owner of the property. In this case, the property involved is a motor vehicle and only a motor vehicle owner is defined under Section 2(30) of the Act which reads as under:- '”owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement' 3. If the registered certificate of the vehicle is not filed then as a person in possession he could have made a claim only if it was a subject matter of hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation. Either as owner having his name duly registered or as a person in possession, he could not satisfy the requirement of Section 2(30) of the Act. 4. The dismissal of the petition under circumstances was F.A.O.NO. 218 OF 1993 3 justified and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 8th February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik