FAO No.1579 of 2000(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.1579 of 2000(O&M) Kashmir Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Dev Singh and others ... Respondents FAO No.1580 of 2000(O&M) Kashmir Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Raj Singh and others ... Respondents FAO No.1581 of 2000(O&M) Kashmir Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Ujjagar Singh and others ... Respondents FAO No.1582 of 2000(O&M) Kashmir Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Nek Singh and others ... Respondents FAO No.1583 of 2000(O&M) Kashmir Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Sher Kaur and others ... Respondents FAO No.1579 of 2000(O&M) [2] FAO No.1584 of 2000(O&M) Kashmir Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Surjit Kaurand others ... Respondents FAO No.1585 of 2000(O&M) Kashmir Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Rajinder Kaur and others ... Respondents FAO No.1586 of 2000(O&M) Kashmir Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Dhan Kaur and others ... Respondents and FAO No.1587 of 2000(O&M) Kashmir Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Gurmail Singh and others ... Respondents Decided on : March 30, 2010 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Arun Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. A.N.JINDAL, J.- None appears for the respondents. Mr.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate, who has been representing the driver FAO No.1579 of 2000(O&M) [3] of the offending vehicle Nirbhay Singh in FAO No.2053 of 2000 has apprised this Court that he has no instructions to appear in these cases. However, on the asking of the Court, Mr.Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate, appearing for Mr.Vinod Chaudhary, Advocate, who has been representing the respondent New India Assurance Company Limited in the connected matter (FAO No.2053 of 2000) and is well aware about the facts of the case, accepts the notice on behalf of the Company. Heard. In all these appeals, Kashmir Kaur – appellant, owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Tempo No.PB-13C-1677 (herein referred as `the appellant') has challenged the award dated 2.11.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (herein referred as `the Tribunal'), awarding compensation in favour of the claimants and against the appellant and driver – respondent Nirbhay Singh. The only common point raised herein is as under:- “Whether a vehicle, which was insured as goods carriage vehicle, could be used for plying the passengers and carrying passengers in such a vehicle would amount to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of Insurance?” On 30.9.1994, when respondent Nirbhay Singh was driving the offending Tempo rashly and negligently, it turned turtle, a s a result of which many passengers suffered injuries, out of which Rohi Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Karnail Singh and Roop Singh died, while many others suffered injuries. Accordingly, eleven claim petitions had been filed, out of FAO No.1579 of 2000(O&M) [4] which two claim petitions filed by Sukhdev Singh and Dara Singh were dismissed, whereas, other claimants were awarded compensation against respondent Nirbhay Singh and appellant Kashmir Kaur. Now, Kashmir Kaur has assailed the award while urging that insurance company was liable. Admitted position of law is that a vehicle, which has been insured as Goods Carriage vehicle, could not be plied for carrying the passengers and if so happens, then it would amount to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such the Company could not be held liable to pay the compensation. As regards the other contention that she had already sold the vehicle to Manjit Singh and Kartar Singh and given an affidavit to these persons and, thus, she ceased to be the owner of the offending vehicle, it may be observed that the contention is devoid of any merit. No document worth the name has been placed on record showing that the vehicle was transferred in favour of Manjit Singh and Kartar Singh. The document (Ex.R2) as produced by her in Court being the only photostate copy of the agreement is not per-se admissible in evidence. No permission to lead additional evidence was ever sought by the appellant. The appellant has also not brought on record the Registration Certificate in order to show that the offending vehicle had been transferred in the names of Manjit Singh and Kartar Singh. In other words, no evidence has been brought on the record in order to prove the sale of the vehicle to the aforesaid two persons. Narinder Singh (RW1) has been examined to depose that Rajinder Singh and his wife Kashmir Kaur (appellant) were owning the offending vehicle FAO No.1579 of 2000(O&M) [5] and they had agreed to sell the same to Manjit Singh and Jagtar Singh vide the agreement Ex.R1, but this deposition is contradicted by Ex.R1, which was allegedly executed by Rajinder Singh only, who is not the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Thus, the appellant has miserably failed to prove the sale of the offending vehicle, prior to the accident. Moreover, it is a settled law by now that the person, who is registered as owner with the Registering Authority is liable to pay the compensation. No other point has been urged. In view of the above, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are dismissed. March 30, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE