IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.11574-CII of 2009 and F.A.O.No.2350 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 14.10.2009 Union of India and others ...... Appellants VERSUS Vijay Kumar and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Ranjana Salaria, Advocate, for Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Aggrieved against the order dated 10.01.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar, (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') dismissing the claim petition, the appellants-claimants (herein referred as 'the claimants') have come up in appeal. The claim petition has been dismissed on the ground that SI T Satya Parkash No.83001318 and HC/Dvr Birender Kumar No.78001309, who had sustained multiple injuries in the accident, had not preferred the claim petition but the claimant-Union of India, under whom they were employed has preferred claim petition for seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by the aforesaid persons and for the damages to the truck bearing registration No.WBQ-5724 TATA-7 T, owned by Union of India. The claim petition appears to be misconceived. It could be filed by the legal representatives of the deceased or by the injured for the injuries suffered by him or the owner of the vehicle or the good could also initiate the cause for loss or damage suffered by him for the damage to his vehicle(s) or the goods if any. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act also envisages that an application could be filed for seeking compensation arising out of the accident by the persons as under:- “(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or F.A.O.No.2350 of 2009 (O&M) -2- (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) Whether death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be”. In view of the aforesaid provisions, this claim petition, neither filed by the injured, his agent nor by his attorney for the injuries suffered by the two persons, is not maintainable. Now coming to the grant of compensation for the damages caused to the truck owned by Union of India, it is noticed that no evidence has been led by the claimants in order to establish that they got repaired the truck from agency and spent any amount over the same. The claimants have produced only a quotation mark-”A” for the spare parts but further no evidence has been led in order to show that any spare parts were actually purchased by the claimants in order to get their truck repaired. They have not produced any evidence to show that how much amount was spent for repairing the vehicle and no mechanic has been examined, who charged the amount for repairing the vehicle. Even otherwise, this appeal being time barred is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 320 days in its filing. The grounds, as set up by the claimants for condoning the delay, could not be said to be sufficient. Resultantly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also fails. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 14.10.2009 mamta-II