FAO No. 2118 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 2118 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.7.2010 Satpal ... Appellant vs Rajbir and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The driver of the vehicle is before this Court challenging the award dated 26.10.2009, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the appellant and respondent no. 3 were held liable to satisfy the award. The brief facts of the case are that on 6.9.2008, son of respondents no. 1 and 2, namely, Rahul, aged five years, was playing on side of the road. The appellant came from the side of village Kulana in his tempo (Ganesh), which was being driven by him rashly and negligently. The vehicle hit Rahul directly, as a result of which he fell down and was run over under the rear right wheel of the vehicle. Rahul was picked up by Anil Kumar @ Bhagat Singh and Manoj, who were standing nearby. They took Rahul to Government Hospital, Jhajjar, where he was declared dead. The deceased was the only son of respondents no. 1 and 2. Thereafter, the claimants filed petition which was allowed by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant and respondent no.3 liable to satisfy the award, it is this finding which is challenged in the present appeal by the driver of the vehicle in question. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle in question does not fall within the definition of motor vehicle as provided under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”). It was further submitted that the appellant was driving the vehicle after following the proper traffic rules but the deceased lost his life due to his own fault. He further submitted that the claimants have not impleaded the owner as party to the petition, therefore, their petition should have been dismissed by the learned Tribunal only on the ground of non- joining of necessary party. The submission was that award of the learned Tribunal be set aside and the appellant be absolved from the liability to pay compensation and the same be recovered from its owner. FAO No. 2118 of 2010 -2- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-book. As admitted by the appellant, the accident in question took place with the vehicle which he was driving. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle in question does not fall within the definition of vehicle as provided under the Act because self made vehicles having four wheels along with an engine fitted with a body like a trolley, satisfied all the requirements of a vehicle. The appellant has not produced any witness in support of his case that he was driving the vehicle as per traffic rules, except examining himself as RW1. His self explanatory statement is not sufficient to prove his case as on the contrary the claimants have produced sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. His vehicle was not registered with any of the registering authority, therefore, it cannot be said that he was following all the rules. Regarding non-joining of owner as necessary party, it is the fault of the appellant and not of the claimants because when he applied for release of vehicle, which was impounded by the police, the same was not released as he failed to disclose the name of the owner, therefore, it cannot be said that the claimants have not impleaded correct parties. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any illegality in allowing the claim petition. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 16.7.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge