F.A.O. No. 5778 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 5778 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.1.2010 Baldev Singh .......... Appellant Versus Dharminder Singh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Veneet Soni, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of two first appeals against order i.e. FAO No. 5778 of 2009 and FAO No. 5779 of 2009, both titled Baldev Singh Versus Dharminder Singh etc., as the common questions of law and facts are involved. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from FAO No. 5778 of 2009. This appeal by Baldev Singh is directed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar ( hereinafter referred to “the Tribunal”) vide which claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act stands allowed. The award is challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant, on the ground, that the appellant is not the real owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident, therefore, no liability could be fastened on him. F.A.O. No. 5778 of 2009 2 In support of this contention the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the objection taken by the appellant regarding maintainability of the petition against him. On the application moved by the appellant the learned Tribunal had passed an order on 1.4.2008, which reads as under :- “ Respondent No.2 has filed written statement today. Copy given. In view of filing of this written statement by respondent No.2, ex parte proceedings against him, are set aside. An application has been moved by the claimants that respondent No.1, who, is the owner of the vehicle, was not served and in his place, a person of his name and whose father's name is also identical as Baldev Singh, who, is owner of the vehicle, has been served and filed written statement and that real respondent No.1 be served, whose, address has been given. In this view of the matter, respondent No.1, who, has filed written statement, is not the real respondent of this case and accordingly, this application is accepted and now, Baldev Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, resident of Bahniwal, P.O. Bal Kalan, District Amritsar, at present H. No. 493/81, Shri Hargobind Avenue, Majitha Road, Amritsar, be served for 30-4-2008. Written statement filed by some other Baldev Singh, than respondent No.1, be returned to Sh. Rajdeep Sood, Advocate, as the same does not pertain to real Baldev Singh, who, has been sued in this case. So, Sh. Rajdeep Sood, Advocate, will also not be marked present, hereinafter.” In pursuance to the order dated 1.4.2008, reproduced above, the F.A.O. No. 5778 of 2009 3 service was again effected. In pursuance thereto the appellant again appeared in the Court and contested the claim petition on merit. After the petitions are allowed the learned counsel for the appellant has now again challenged the award on the ground that the appellant is not owner of the vehicle. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that Baldev Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh is the owner of the vehicle, and the vehicle involved in accident was taken on Superdari through the attorney of Baldev Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh. The doubt was created in view of the photographs and signatures on the power of attorney. This contention though looks attractive on the face of it, but if seen in depth, it cannot be accepted because of the conduct of the appellant. Once the learned Tribunal had accepted the version of the appellant and deleted his name from the arena of parties, and had directed the claimant to serve Baldev Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, resident of Bahniwal, P.O. Bal Kalan, District Amritsar, at present H. No. 493/81, Shri Hargobind Avenue, Majitha Road, Amritsar, who was said to be residing on the address given in the claim petition at that time, to appear and contest the claim. It is not understood that if the appellant was not the owner then again on second time why he chose to contest the claim petition on merit and take the chance of success. He has failed to non-suit the claimant on merit, now this plea can not be accepted. This appeal being without any merit is accordingly dismissed. 13.1.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE