FAO No.1793 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1793 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: September 17, 2009. Jai Bhagwan ...Appellant(s) v. Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Shri Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri R.C. Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ORDER Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): CM No.11580-CII of 2008 Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant states that respondents No.2 and 3, who are the owners of the offending vehicle need not be served as no recovery rights have been given to the respondent- insurance company qua them. The prayer is accepted. Appearance of respondents No.2 and 3 is dispensed with. This is an application for condonation of 358 days delay in filing this appeal. Notice of this application was given to the respondents, however, no reply has been filed by the respondent-insurance company who FAO No.1793 of 2008 -: 2 :- has also been held liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal and no recovery rights have been given to the Insurer. Thus, for the reasons as mentioned in the application, which remain unrebutted, I allow this application and condone the delay of 358 days in filing this appeal. FAO No.1793 of 2008 This is claimant's appeal challenging the award dated 2.1.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani on the ground of inadequacy of compensation granted to the appellant on the account of death of his son – Gaurav, who was one and half years of age at the time of his death. It is relevant to mention here that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of death of Gaurav. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that while granting compensation on account of death of Gaurav, aged about one and a half years, the Tribunal has not considered the evidence properly and has awarded palpably low and inadequate compensation. However, learned counsel was unable to point out as to how the compensation of an amount of Rs.50,000/- was inadequate. In fact, learned counsel could not find fault with the award of the Tribunal. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. September 17, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge