FAO No.5317 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5317 of 2010 (O&M) (In MACT No. 17 of 2009) Date of decision:22.11.2011 Harminder Singh ....Appellant Versus Maharani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Ashok Giri, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4. ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) CM No.23422-CII of 2010 Despite notice, reply has not been filed by the respondents. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, delay of 7 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. FAO No. 5317 of 2010 The present appeal has been filed by the appellant i.e. owner of the offending Motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-19-8308, assailing the award dated 22.3.2010, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide which, the claim petition of the claimants was allowed and the appellant, being the owner of the FAO No.5317 of 2010 (O&M) 2 alleged motorcycle, was held liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. Brief facts giving rise to the case are that on 1.8.2008, Manohar Lal, since deceased, was going from Naya Nagal side on motorcycle bearing registration No. HP -19- 8308, which was borrowed from appellant- Harminder Singh. Meanwhile, when he reached towards Kamla Mor, a buffalo came from the street side and to save the buffalo, he applied brakes, as a result of which, he fell down on the road and sustained multiple, grievous injuries on the head and other parts of body. He was rushed to BBMB, Hospital at Nangal, where he was declared dead. The claimants filed a claim petition i.e. MACT No. 17 of 2009, which was allowed by the learned Tribunal and they were awarded a sum of `3,46,000/- as compensation. The appellant, owner of the Motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-19-8308, was held liable to pay the entire amount of compensation because the deceased not proved to be holding a valid and effective driving licence. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009 AIR (SC) 3056. He further refers to Annexure R-2 and contends that the deceased-driver was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. He further contends that Annexure R-2 came to the knowledge of the appellant after the decision of the claim petition. Therefore, the present case may be remanded back to decide the matter afresh. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in the facts FAO No.5317 of 2010 (O&M) 3 and circumstances of the case, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and another's case (supra), the present appeal is accepted and the impugned award is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide afresh according to law. Both the parties are directed to appear through their respective counsel before the learned Tribunal on 19.12.2011. 22.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE