F.A.O.No. 3063 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 3063 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.12.2008 Jaswinder Singh (deceased) through his LRs ....Appellants Versus Bant Singh alias Balwant Singh & others. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Narender Lucky, Advocate for respondents No.2, 4,5 & 6. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No.3. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. Delay in filing and re-filing is conconed. The only question that has been raised in the present appeal is regarding the liability which has been fastened upon respondent No.1 who is the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the vehicle in question was owned by one Bant Singh son of Basta Singh and before he could be served in the proceedings before the Tribunal, he expired. It transpired that one Surjit Singh had purchased the vehicle from Bant Singh, therefore, he was impleaded as a party. The Tribunal while answering issue No.3 observed that F.A.O.No. 3063 of 2006 -2- the registered owner of the vehicle had not been impleaded as a party, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon him. Further, there was sufficient evidence before the Tribunal that the vehicle in question was insured as the insurance policy Ex.RX was produced by the Insurance Company itself. It was submitted before this Court that in fact Surjit Singh is the grandson of Bant Singh son of Basta Singh who was the original owner and the vehicle having been transferred in his name, apparently was a result of fictitious transfer in order to evade any liability. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the factum of the vehicle being in the name of Bant Singh or Surjit Singh would be inconsequential as the vehicle was insured and the liability of third party could not be washed away even if it was assumed that there was a valid transfer of the vehicle. That apart, the claim of an applicant before the Tribunal cannot be defeated on the pleas which are so far fetched and smack of technicalities. The facts of the case reveal that Bant Singh son of Basta Singh was impleaded as a party and thereafter the subsequent vendee i.e. Surjit Singh was also impleaded as a party. Surjit Singh is the grandson of deceased Bant Singh. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the Tribunal was apparently wrong in recording that the owner had not been impleaded as a party. Viewed from any angle, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly and it is held that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is liable to satisfy the award. F.A.O.No. 3063 of 2006 -3- In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, Jaswinder Singh claimant had not suffered any permanent disability. He had, however, suffered mere internal injuries as a result of which he had to be operated upon. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation under various heads and has concluded that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,22,250/-, which cannot be termed to be inadequate considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 11.12.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss