F.A.O.NO. 2997 OF 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2997 OF 2005 Date of decision:11th August, 2010 Baldev Singh and another .......Appellants Versus Balwant Kaur and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for the Ist appellant. Mr. Darshan Singh Malwai, Advocate, for the 2nd appellant. Mr. D.R.Singla, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Mr. H.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal had been filed by the driver and the owner. The driver having expired subsequent to the filing of the appeal I record the same and the registry may record the fact of the death F.A.O.NO. 2997 OF 2005 2 of the driver against the name of the first appellant in the cause table. Since award has been passed against the owner also the owner shall become liable vicariously for the act of the driver. If it is to be proved that the accident had taken place, the appeal is being taken up for hearing with the surviving party i.e., the second appellant. 2. In the Trial Court it was found that the accident involved the vehicle was truck bearing Registration No. PAT-8432 and not RJ-13-G-5511. The fact of the involvement of the vehicle bearing Registration No. PAT-8432 had been brought through the evidence of AW-2 a photographer which showed the photograph of the vehicle taken immediately after the accident to show its involvement. The Tribunal found that it was only the vehicle the truck bearing Registration No. PAT-8432 which was involved in the accident and how it was also initially pleaded by the claimants. Evidently, the appellant who is also the owner of the other vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-13-G-5511 was interested in taking up a plea of involvement of another vehicle only because other vehicle had been insured while the vehicle that actually met with the accident had remained uninsured. The Tribunal therefore, while finding involvement of truck bearing Registration NO. PAT-8432, made the driver and the owner liable for the compensation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that when the claimants had amended the claim to state that it was only the vehicle bearing Registration NO. RJ-13-G-5511 F.A.O.NO. 2997 OF 2005 3 which was involved in the accident, the Tribunal could not have found another vehicle to have been involved and made the appellant liable. On a contention by the counsel for the appellant that the claim statement had been modified by the claimant, the Tribunal ought not be without power to find out the truth and the involvement of the actual vehicle in the accident. That was the exercise undertaken by the Tribunal and found the appellant's vehicle to be responsible for the accident. The plea by the learned counsel that in view of the amendment of the claim by the claimant, the appellant could not have been made liable is meaningless. The Tribunal has expressed anguish against the conduct of the owner deliberately giving a false story and giving out the details of another vehicle only to secure an indemnity from the Insurance Company. The truth having been found the liability cast on the appellant was perfectly justified. This appeal is an abuse of process of Court. The same is dismissed with Rs. 2,000/- as costs in two sets for the insurer and the claimants respectively. The stay which was granted shall stand vacated. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 11th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik