IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH F. A. O. No. 1163 of 2005 Date of Decision: December 12, 2008 Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission ...........Appellant Versus Bir Pal and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Ms. Geeta Sharma,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the New India Assurance Company Ltd. * * * Sabina, J. This is an appeal filed against the award dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal). The claim petition was filed by the Commission/claimant seeking damages on account of damage of Car No. CH-01G1-0575. The case of the claimant was that the driver of the car in question had stopped the car at a National Highway-I at Jandli Crossing behind a trailor truck No. HR-37-A-0135. In the meantime, truck No. UP-14-C-0121 came from behind and struck against the stationary car. The car dashed against the truck parked in front of it. The car was badly damaged. Hence, the claim petition was filed. F. A. O. No. 1163 of 2005 -2- Notice of the claim petition was issued to the respondents and they filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- "1. Whether vehicle no. CH-01-GI-0575 was badly damaged in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP-14-C-0121?OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved, to what amount of damaged, the claimant is entitled to and from whom of the respondents 3. Whether respondent no.1 (driver) was not holding a valid driving licence? OPP 4. Relief” Parties led their evidence in support of their case. Vide the impugned award, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant and aggrieved by the same, claimant has filed the present appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Appellant/Commission pleaded that it was the owner of the car No. CH-01-GI 575. In order to prove its ownership, the registration certificate of the car was not proved on record. In fact, no document was proved on record whereby the ownership of the appellant with regard to the car in question could be established. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the ownership of car in question of the appellant, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. The impugned award calls for no interference. F. A. O. No. 1163 of 2005 -3- Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Sabina) December 12, 2008 Judge arya