FAO No.4969 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4969 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:12.8.2011 Smt. Kulbir Kaur ...Appellant Versus Satnam Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Tajinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate. Mr.Subhash Goel, Advocate, for the respondent-Insurance Company. -.- JITENDRA CHUAHAN, J. The present appeal is directed against the award dated 10.3.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nawanshahr, (for short `the Tribunal), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.1.2004, when the claimant/appellant alongwith other persons were coming from Banga Town to Nawanshahr, in a car bearing registration No.PP-32-D-0289 (for short `offending vehicle) being driven by respondent No.1, met with an accident near the Petrol Pump of village Kahma with the tractor trolloy, as a result of which, the claimant as well as other co-occupants of the offending vehicle FAO No.4969 of 2009 2 sustained injuries. The claimant averred that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The matter was reported to the police and a DDR was recorded regarding the said accident. Hence, the claim petition. In the reply, the Insurance Company, respondent No.2, took the stand that respondent No.1 was not having all the necessary documents, which are required. It was further pleaded that the driver and owner of the said tractor-trolloey being necessary party were not impleaded. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of claimant's husband i.e. respondent No.1. No FIR was lodged. As the offending vehicle was not under the control and physical possession of respondent No.2, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. After hearing both the parties and allowing the parties to lead evidence, the learned Tribunal vide award dated 10.3.2008 dismissed the claim petition of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved against the award of the learned Tribunal, the claimant/appellant has preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is proved that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, who is also the owner of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company. He has also submitted that there is no evidence, which suggests that the appellant/claimant was a gratuitous passenger. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the alleged accident took place on 9.1.2004. The original owner FAO No.4969 of 2009 3 i.e. mother of respondent No.1 died on 19.10.2003. He has further submitted that the registration of the offending vehicle was not subsequently got changed either in the name of the injured or the driver, who being the husband of the injured and son of the original owner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The only question involved in the instant case is to determine whether the learned Tribunal erred in not granting the compensation to the claimant? From the perusal of award, it is made out that the alleged accident took place on 9.1.2004, whereas the original owner of the offending vehicle had died on 19.10.2003. No FIR was brought on record against respondent No.1 on account of rash and negligent driving. Only a DDR came on record, which was recorded on the statement of one Baljit Singh. Said Baljit Singh was not examined by the claimant/appellant for the reasons best known to her. There is no evidence, which suggests that respondent No.1-driver of the offending vehicle got the said vehicle transferred in his name after the death of Pritam Kaur. It is settled principle that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured. The fact of not transferring the offending vehicle is proved on record. In the circumstance, I do not find any reason to differ with the findings of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. The delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained. FAO No.4969 of 2009 4 Accordingly, the appeal fails on this count as well. 12.8.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE