MAJEED Vs. NOORJAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Nos.3(a-d) being the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3 in M.V.C. No. 550/1995 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & AMACT, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dtd. 27/1/2004, awarding compensation of Rs.53,000.00 with interest at 6% p.a. and directing respondent no.3 to pay the same to the claimants. They are also challenging the amended judgment and award dtd. 15/6/2007 passed in the said case. Parties shall be referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

(2.) The claimants have filed the claim petition in M.V.C. No. 550/1995 before the Tribunal against respondent Nos.1 to 4 contending that deceased Gouse Moideen is their son, he was working as a Coolie and earning Rs.750.00 per month. On 28/4/1990 he had gone for coolie work, i.e., loading and unloading of bricks, under respondent nos.1 to 3, they being the owners of the tactor-trailer bearing reg. no. MYK-2273 and 5020. Respondent No.1 was driving the tractor and due to his rash and negligent driving, the deceased who was sitting on the bumper of the tractor fell down and came under the wheels. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and immediately shifted to PHC, Shiggaon, thereafter to KMC, Hubli. He succumbed to the injuries on 29/4/1990. It is contended that when the claimants were in grief, respondent nos.1 and 3 have taken LTI of claimant no.1 on some white papers by misrepresentation that it is required for treating their son and also for postmortem examination. It is contended that respondent No.1 being the driver, respondent nos.2 and 3 being the owners and respondent no.4 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs and accordingly prayed for allowing the claim petition. Respondent No.1 appeared before the Tribunal represented by his Advocate but has not filed any objections. Respondent No.2 filed objection statement stating that on 28/4/1990, i.e., on the date of the alleged accident, respondent No.2 was not the owner of the tactor-trailer bearing reg. no. MYK-2273 and 5020. It is stated that he had sold the same in favour of respondent No.3 under an agreement dtd. 13/11/1989, by receiving valuable consideration. On 1/2/1990 all the relevant documents were signed, including transfer form and thus on the date of alleged accident, respondent no.2 was not the owner and hence he is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also contended that it was respondent No.3 who got released the tractor-trailer in question from the criminal court as the same was seized after the accident. He proclaimed that he is the owner of the tractor-trailer in question by filing affidavit before the Court. Therefore, respondent No.2 prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against him. Respondent No.3 remained absent inspite of service of notice.

(3.) On the basis of these pleadings, the following issues were came to be framed.