IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4997 of 2010 (O/M) Date of Decision : August 25, 2010. Ramrattan and another ...... Appellants Versus Babli and others ...... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the appellants. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present appeal has been preferred challenging the Award dated 21.07.2010 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (in short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby appellant No. 2 has been held to be owner of the offending vehicle, on which the deceased Murari Singh was sitting when the accident took place. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence led by the parties held appellant No. 2 to be owner of the offending vehicle despite the fact that registration of the offending vehicle on the date when the accident took place, was not in his name. Counsel for the appellants contends that the liability of appellant No. 2 cannot be fixed in the light of the fact that the affidavit RW-1 had not been proved by the claimants before the Tribunal and it is only a marked document. Reliance placed on the said document by the Tribunal in holding appellant No. 2 to be owner of the offending vehicle, cannot be accepted. His further contention is that the accident took place on 14.01.2008, whereas the offending vehicle was transferred in the name of appellant No. 2 on 04.02.2008, i.e., after the date of accident. He contends that merely because an application for superdari had been submitted by appellant No. 2 for release of the vehicle involved in the accident case and the fact that an FIR was FAO No. 4997 of 2010 (O/M) -2- registered and the vehicle was taken in custody, would not hold him to be owner of the vehicle. His further contention is that the assement of income and the grant of interest @ 12% by the Tribunal are on the higher side. I have heard counsel for the appellants and have gone through the records of the case. It has been proved on record that the offending vehicle was in the name of Bhupender Singh/respondent No. 6 on the date when the accident took place. The documents, which were produced before the Tribunal, clearly prove that the possession of the vehicle in pursuance of the affidavit, which has been marked as RW-1, showing the sale of the vehicle in the name of appellant No. 2, which was duly attested on 08.01.2008 and the stamp paper was bought on 03.01.2008 shows that on 14.01.2008 possession of the vehicle was in the name of appellant No. 2 and that was in pursuance of the sale in favour of appellant No. 2. Further it has been proved on record by an application of superdari Ex.PG, copy of the order of superdari Ex.PH, copy of the superdginama, Ex.PI, and copy of release order Ex.PJ, that Yogender Singh/appellant No. 2 had purchased the offending vehicle from respondent No. 6/Bhupender Singh on 03.01.2008. The finding thus recorded by the Tribunal is based on the evidence and, therefore, cannot be faulted with. As regards contention of counsel for the appellants that the assessment of income and the grant of interest @ 12% is excessive, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the same. Evidence had been produced before the Tribunal, which has been taken into consideration while returning a finding with regard to income of the deceased. The same cannot be faulted with nor any flaw could be pointed out in reaching the said amount by counsel for the appellants. I am of the considered view that the income and interest of 12 per cent per annum, as has been granted by the Tribunal, is FAO No. 4997 of 2010 (O/M) -3- justified and has been granted as per judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 ACJ SC 1296. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 25, 2010. sjks.