In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 4126 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: August 24, 2009 Sardari Lal and others .. Appellants Vs. Ranjit Singh and others .. Respondents F.A.O. No.4127 of 2007 (O&M) Sushma and others .. Appellants Vs. Ranjit Singh and others .. Respondents F.A.O. No. 4128 of 2007 (O&M) Sunil Kumar .. Appellant Vs. Ranjit Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the Insurance Company. A.N. Jindal, J This judgment of mine shall dispose of three connected appeals i.e. F.A.O. Nos. 4126, 4127 and 4128 of 2007, having arisen out of the judgment dated 5.5.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, awarding compensation as under :- MACT No.60 of 17.5.01, Sardari Lal and others vs. Ranjit Singh and others under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Rs.50,000/- on account of no fault liability. F.A.O. No. 4126 of 2007, F.A.O. No.4127 of 2007 & F.A.O. No. 4128 of 2007 -2- MACT No.20 of 22.3.01 Sushma and another vs. Ranjit Singh and others under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. Rs.4,37,932/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. MACT No.130 of 9.8.02/19.5.01, Sunil Kumar vs. Yashpal and others under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It was dismissed on the ground that it was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act and it was observed by the Tribunal that the respondent No.2 (driver) was not negligent, therefore, the respondents could not be held liable for any compensation. The appellants have raised variety of contentions for treating the claim petition of Sunil Kumar under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act and also that Satpal Singh driver of the offending truck was negligent, but no merit could be found in the same. It has also been contended by the respondents that the owner of the car being necessary party should have been impleaded as party. In this regard it may be observed that since the driver of the offending truck was not negligent in causing the accident, therefore, is not a necessary party. Records further reveal that the Tribunal appears to have rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by Sunil Kumar as he could not claim compensation as the accident took place on account of the fault on the part of Parbodh Kumar @ Parmod Kumar driver of the car bearing registration No.PB-6B-5161 in which the claimant was travelling. As such, the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act by Sunil Kumar could not be maintained against the respondents particularly when driver of the truck bearing registration No.PB-12B-9899 was not negligent. Now coming to the claim petition No.60 of 17.5.2001 titled as Sardari Lal and others vs. Ranjit Singh and others, since it was third party policy, therefore, it was Parbodh Kumar @ Parmod Kumar driver/owner of the car, therefore, on account of third party insurance, his legal heirs could not claim any compensation. Now coming to claim petition No.20 of 22.3.2001 titled as Sushma and others vs. Ranjit Singh and others, the claimant has set up the case that Ramesh Kumar was 30 years old and was earning Rs.20,000/- per F.A.O. No. 4126 of 2007, F.A.O. No.4127 of 2007 & F.A.O. No. 4128 of 2007 -3- month. Thus, it was urged that the claimant should have been awarded compensation on the higher rate. Without going deep into the merits, while taking the income of Ramesh Kumar as Rs.20,000/- per month, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act could not be maintained, but as I am not sitting over the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, therefore, the question regarding the maintainability of the petition is not decided. However, without commenting further, it would be suffice to say that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is already on the higher side. Resultantly, all the three claim petitions being without any merit are hereby dismissed. August 24, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge