Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1846 (PNJ)

Tejvir v. Bimla

2007-10-12

S.D.ANAND

body2007
JUDGMENT S.D. Anand, J. - A claim petition preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 9 (hereinafter referred to as claimants) to obtain compensation in respect of the death of Ramesh Chand (husband of respondent-claimant Bimla, father of respondent-claimants Sushma, Kusham, Poonam, Saroj, Arti and Kushal and son of respondent-claimants Ram Chander and Mst. Chandra) was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 10.11.2005 and a compensation of Rs. 6,17,472/- was awarded. The appellant (who is driver of the offending vehicle) was held liable to pay the amount of compensation. 2. The driver has filed the present FAO to impugn the validity of the impugned award. 3. Mr. S.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, argues that the impugned award is unsustainable for the simple reason that the registered owner of the offending vehicle was not impleaded at the trial and no steps were taken to implead the insurer either at the trial. It is also the plea on behalf of the appellant that the vehicle driven by the appellant was not involved in the impugned accident which (impugned accident) had been caused by another vehicle which had overtaken the vehicle driven by the appellant and brought to an abrupt stop. 4. As would be evident from a perusal of the record, the respondent-claimants had no idea bout the identity of the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It was in view of that handicap that the respondent-claimants impleaded the registered owner of the offending vehicle as respondent No. 3 and indicated that his particulars would have to be disclosed by the driver who is presently the appellant before this Court. It is common ground that the appellant did not disclose the identity of the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is neither here nor there for the learned counsel for the appellant to argue that the appellant refrained from disclosing the identity of the registered owner of the offending vehicle as he had merely borrowed it from him. The plea reaised is plainly illogical and unacceptable. There is no relevance of the circumstances under which the appellant had come to be in possession of the offending vehicle which was owned by the registered owner thereof. All that the appellant was required to do was to disclose the particulars of the registered owner of the offending vehicle in order to enable the respondent-claimants to implead him. There is no relevance of the circumstances under which the appellant had come to be in possession of the offending vehicle which was owned by the registered owner thereof. All that the appellant was required to do was to disclose the particulars of the registered owner of the offending vehicle in order to enable the respondent-claimants to implead him. If the registered owner had been impleaded, he would have been called upon to disclose the particulars of insurer. In that eventuality, the insurer would also have been impleaded. Be that as it may, the appellant cannot be allowed to request for exoneration from liability, particularly when it is not disputed that he is facing a prosecution on a charge of having caused the impugned accident by driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me to find any lacuna in the impugned award to justify its invalidation. 6. For the reasons aforementioned, the FAO is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.