F.A.O. No. 5208 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 5208 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.4.2010. Jasbir Singh and another ....Appellants Versus United India Insurance Company and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent No. 1- Insurance Company. RAJESH BINDAL, J **** C.M. No. 25568-CII of 2009 Reply to the application for condonation of delay in refiling of the appeal filed in Court is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 1326 days in refiling the appeal is condoned subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as costs to the respondent No.1-Insurance Company. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No. 25567-CII of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. FAO No. 5208 of 2009 The owner and driver of the vehicle in question are in appeal before this Court challenging the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby right to recover the amount paid to the claimants was given to the Insurance Company from the appellants on account of the fact that the driving licence produced on record mentioned the name of driver as Jasbir Singh son of Charan Dass, whereas the person who was impleaded in the claim petition as driver was Jasbir Singh son of Rulda Singh. As identity of the person who was driving the vehicle did not tally with the driving licence produced on record, the Tribunal opined that the driver of the vehicle was not carrying effective driving licence at the time of accident and the owner and driver were held liable to reimburse the compensation in case paid by F.A.O. No. 5208 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the Insurance Company to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that infact the correct name of father of the driver is Charan Dass and it was by mistake that his name was mentioned as Rulda Singh in the claim petition. In fact Charan Dass is known in the village as Rulda Singh also. He submitted that this can be proved by leading cogent evidence and only for the purpose of determination of this fact, which has bearing on liability of the owner and driver of the vehicle, the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal. The claimants are not going to suffer as they have been paid the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that once the appellants have failed to defend the case effectively before the Tribunal by referring to the mistake in the memo of parties, at this stage they should not be permitted to raise all these issues. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, if it can be proved that the right person who was driving the vehicle was Jasbir Singh son of Charan Dass and it was by mistake that his parentage was mentioned as Rulda Singh, the appellants should be granted one opportunity to prove this fact as it is not in dispute in the present case that the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.1-Company. It was given recovery right from the appellants only on account of error, as is sought to be projected by learned counsel for appellants. In case they are able to prove that parentage of Jasbir Singh is Charan Dass in which name he was carrying the driving licence and he was the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, finding of the Tribunal giving right of recovery to the Insurance Company from them may have to be re- considered. Considering the aforesaid facts, I deem it appropriate to set aside the finding of the Tribunal only to that effect and remit the case back for determination of the issue as referred to above, afresh. Parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the Tribunal on May 27, 2010. However, considering the fact that it was lapse on part of the appellants in not properly defending the case before the Tribunal, they are burdened with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. Total cost imposed on the appellants shall be paid by the appellants to the Insurance Company on the very first date of the hearing before the Tribunal, otherwise the present appeal shall be considered as dismissed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (RAJESH BINDAL) 29.4.2010. JUDGE Reema