FAO No.1187 of 2008(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.1187 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : August 21, 2009 Gurmeet Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Meena Kumari and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mrs.Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.K.Goel, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. A.N.JINDAL, J.- CM No.7673-CII of 2008 : CM allowed. Delay condoned. FAO No.1187 of 2008 : This appeal preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle Gurmeet Kaur is against the judgment dated 3.1.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, awarding compensation to the claimants – respondents No.1 to 4 (herein referred as `the claimants') to the tune of Rs.15,64,360/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on the death of Subedar Shamsher Singh Minhas. The facts as carved out from the record are that on 21.12.2002 at about 2.55 p.m, when the deceased was on his way from headquarters Western Command, Chandimandir to his house situated in Sector-2, FAO No.1187 of 2008(O&M) [ 2 ] Panchkula, in the meantime, on Kalka-Chandigarh Road near Tank TCP crossing, scooter bearing Reg.No.CH01T-7742, driven by Chand Shiv Roop Singh came from the side of Kalka at a high speed, ignoring the red- light and hit the scooter of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down and suffered multiple injuries. He was removed to the ICU ward in Command Hospital, Chandimandir, where, he was treated upto 31.12.2002, but he did not gain consciousness. The claimants, who are dependents upon the deceased, filed a claim petition, which was contested by the appellant on the grounds that she was not owner of the offending vehicle, and, thus, the petition being bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties, was not maintainable. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of his vehicle by respondent No.1 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether Subedar Shamsher Singh died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident in question, if so, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of respondent No.2 and non-joinder of respondent M/s Rajbir Finance Ltd, as alleged, if so to what effect?OPR 4. Relief.” FAO No.1187 of 2008(O&M) [ 3 ] The claim petition was accepted. The owner has now challenged the award on the ground that as a matter of fact, M/s Rajbir Finance Limited was registered owner and she was not the registered owner. On perusal of the papers, it is apparent that the vehicle was financed by the aforesaid finance company to Mrs.Gurmeet Kaur – appellant. The record fully establishes the fact that besides the claimants, it has been proved through letter (Ex.P7) written by Official Liquidator to the counsel for the claimants that the said finance Company was ordered to be wound up by this Court vide order dated 8.4.1999 passed by Company Petition No.300 of 1998 and the Official Liquidator was appointed. As per record, the scooter bearing Reg.No.CH01T-7742 Chasis No.867068, Engine No.871134 was financed by M/s Rajbir Finance Ltd to the appellant (Gurmeet Kaur wife of Shri Harminder Singh r/o House No.1513, Sector- 43-B, Chandigarh). Besides, the appellant was in possession and control of the vehicle, as such she being the owner was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants on account of the death of Subedar Shamsher Singh Minhas in the accident in question, even though she was not registered owner of the Scooter. According to the affidavit Ex.RA sworn by Chand Shiv Roop Singh – respondent No.5 the scooter was in his possession on the day of accident and he had given lift to a sikh gentleman. Respondent No.5 is none else, but son of the appellant. According to the appellant, who appeared as RW2 before the Tribunal, did not know as to how the FAO No.1187 of 2008(O&M) [ 4 ] offending scooter came in the hands of respondent No.5. Further a perusal of document Ex.P9 shows that in the criminal case pertaining to FIR No.680 dated 21.12.2003 under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, application dated 8.5.2003 was moved by respondent No.5 before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula for the release of the offending scooter on `superdari'. In this application, it was averred by him that the applicant/owner wanted to get released the above said vehicle on superdari and undertook to produce the same as and when required by the Court. A perusal of the document Ex.P10 shows that on 8.5.2003, `superdaginama' in the sum of Rs.20,000/- was furnished by respondent No.5 (Chand Shiv Roop Singh son of Harminder Singh, resident of House NO.203, Sector-5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula) for taking the scooter bearing Reg.No.CH01T-7742 on `superdari. The appellant stood surety for respondent No.5 stating that she was absolute owner of the above said scooter. Taking stock of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court finds no ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. No merits. Dismissed. August 21, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE