FAO No.6911 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6911 of 2010 (in MVA Petition No.44 of 2009) Date of Decision : 22.11.2011 Karan Singh .......Appellant Versus Smt. Ramwati and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The appellant, driver of the offending vehicle, has preferred this appeal against the impugned Award dated 24.12.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal, whereby, he has been solely held liable to indemnify the claimants. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The appellant, Karan Singh, while appearing as RW1 before the learned Tribunal, has admitted in the cross examination 1 FAO No.6911 of 2010 that police had registered a case against him and he is facing trial for causing accident by his rash and negligent driving. The owner of the offending tractor has taken a categorical stand that he had sold the vehicle to the appellant-driver on 12.10.2005. He also produced Affidavit, Ex R1, stated to be executed at the time of the alleged sale. Deep Chand Bainsla, Advocate, who attested the affidavit Ex.R1, in the capacity of Notary Public, appeared as RW3, and supported the case of the respondent-owner. Naresh Kataria, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, appeared as RW4, and submitted his report Ex.RW4/1, stating that the specimen thumb impression and the disputed thumb impression are of one and the same person. No evidence was led in rebuttal. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that Rajbir-respondent No.2 was not the owner of the tractor on the date of the accident because he had already sold it to respondent No.1, Karan Singh, appellant herein, on 12.10.2005. It has been rightly held that the compensation shall be paid by Karan Singh, the appellant. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly held the appellant solely liable to satisfy the Award. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal has given sound reasoning based on the facts and evidence led by the parties, while awarding the amount under each head. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point 2 FAO No.6911 of 2010 out any material infirmity or illegality to show that the compensation awarded under any head is on the higher side. No other point has been raised. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned Award passed by the learned Tribunal. Dismissed in limine. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 22.11.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 3