FAO No.901 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.901 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: October 5, 2009. Ladi ...Appellant(s) v. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Sushil Saini, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Shri Sanjay Dhiman, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ORDER Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): As per the averments, respondents No.1 to 3 filed a petition claiming compensation with regard to the death of Surjit Singh s/o Sardara Singh who allegedly died in a motor vehicular accident caused by respondent No.4, who was driving the truck bearing registration No.PCB- 4797. The claimants petition was initially allowed ex-parte vide award dated 31.8.2000 and they were held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- payable by the appellant and respondent No.4 jointly and severally. On an application moved by the appellant, the aforesaid award dated 31.8.2000 was set aside vide order dated 25.4.2003 against the appellant on the ground that he had already sold the said truck to one Puran Singh. Thereafter, Puran Singh (respondent No.6) was impleaded as respondent. It has also come on record that the aforesaid Puran Singh is none else but father of the appellant. Vide impugned award, claim petition filed by respondents FAO No.901 of 2009 -: 2 :- No.1 to 3 has been dismissed against respondents No.4 & 6 holding that the claimants have failed to prove that respondent No.4 was rash and negligent while driving the alleged offending truck and caused death of Surjit Singh (deceased). While dismissing the aforesaid claim petition, the Tribunal also observed that Puran Singh, respondent No.6 himself admitted that he is the owner of truck, however, he could not be held vicariously liable since negligence on the part of the driver of the truck could not be proved. Against the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, the appellant has come in appeal alleging that the Tribunal has erred in law while not dismissing the claim against him in the ultimate decision of the case. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, however, I find no merit in this appeal. While dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal has clearly observed that Puran Singh – respondent is the admitted owner of the truck and, thus, it cannot be said that the appellant is aggrieved in any manner against any of the findings of the Tribunal. Dismissed. October 05, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge