IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 20605 -CII-2010 in/and FAO No. 4796 of 2010 Date of Decision : August 18, 2010. Krishan Baldev and another ....... Appellants Versus Karnail Kaur and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. H.P.S. Bhinder, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). C.M. No. 20605-CII-2010. Prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal by appellant No. 2/Gurcharan Singh. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 17 days in filing the appeal with regard to appellant No. 2/Gurcharan Singh is condoned. Application stands allowed. FAO No. 4796 of 2010 Counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, (in short ‘the Tribunal’), vide its Order dated 09.04.2010 has wrongly held that the offending vehicle was the truck which was being driven by appellant No. 2, as a matter of fact, no accident with the said truck had taken place. He contends that the finding in this regard returned by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. He in support of FAO No. 4796 of 2010 -2- this contention submits that the claimant has himself mentioned in the claim petition that the tractor trolley was being driven by one Surjit Singh whereas the name of the driver as per the Tribunal is Gurjit Singh. He contends that the statement given by PW-1/Gurjit Singh cannot thus be relied upon and he cannot be stated to be an eye-witness to the accident. However, he is unable to rebut the fact that the FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against appellant No. 2 and the offending vehicle was truck bearing registration No. HR-38-G-8032. It has been observed by the learned Tribunal that the typographical error has crept in, while drafting the claim petition. The evidence has been produced on record in the form of statement of Gurjit Singh, who is an eye witness and further FIR also proves that Gurjit Singh was the driver of the tractor trolley in which deceased Narang Singh was travelling on the day when the accident took place and he was sitting on the right side of the tractor. Thus, the finding as recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to the accident having taken place and the offending vehicle which was being driven by appellant No. 2 cannot be said to be without any basis or perverse. The next argument which has been put forth by counsel for the appellants is that the insurance company would be liable in the present case as the vehicle was duly insured. He contends that the assertion of the insurance company that the offending truck was being driven without proper route permit nor did it have any fitness certificate, is belied from the stand of the insurance company itself, where they have produced the fitness certificate before the Tribunal. This contention of counsel for the appellants does not find mention in the Order passed by the Tribunal. He is unable to produce any document on record with regard to the said contention, which has been raised by him. Even if it is taken that a fitness certificate was issued to the truck in question, but still the factum that it was being driven without proper route FAO No. 4796 of 2010 -3- permit, could not be proved to be incorrect by counsel for the appellants. That being so, the finding as recorded by the Tribunal is fully justified, which is based on the evidence on record and, therefore, deserves to be sustained. No other point has been raised by counsel for the appellants. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 18, 2010. sjks.