MAHESH RAM PATEL Vs. HEMLAL SAHU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award, dated 18-2-2005, passed in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case Nos. 12/2002 and 1/2003.

(2.) The appellant herein was the non-applicant No. 3 before the Tribunal and that he was held to be the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident, though he was not a registered owner. Vide the said impugned award, the Tribunal has held that the present appellant who was the non-applicant No. 3 before the Tribunal as well as the respondent No. 7 in M. A. No. 181/2006 and the respondent No. 3 in M. A. No.1309/2005 jointly being held liable for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,51,800/- in Claim Case No. 12/2002 and Rs. 29,000/- in Claim Case No. 1/2003 with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application.

(3.) The brief fact in the instant case is that on 25-6-1996 deceased Vidhyachand Sahu and one more person namely Hemlal Sahu was travelling in a Jeep bearing registration No. MP-23-D-1808 and the non-applicant No. 6 in appeal No. 181/2006 Padman Das was the driver of the said Jeep and the present appellant and one minor Reghuvendra Sahu were the owners of the said Jeep. The driver Padman Das drove the vehicle at a great speed in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of which, the Jeep turned turtle and met with an accident resulting in the grievous injuries sustained by Vidhyachand Sahu, who later succumbed to his injuries and Hemlal Sahu also sustained injuries. Legal representative of deceased Vidhyachand Sahu and the injured Hemlal Sahu filed two separate claim cases, which were registered as Claim Case No. 12/2002 and Claim Case No. 1/2003 respectively. During the proceedings the stand of the present appellant was that he was not the owner of the said Jeep at the time of accident and that the Jeep was in fact owned by the Raghuvendra Sahu, who was the actual registered owner. The present appellant totally denied the accident, the responsibility and the liability in respect of the claim raised by each of the claimants and it was also the contention of the appellant that he has been wrongly and unnecessarily impleaded as a party to the claim cases. After the pleadings were completed and the evidence were recorded, the Tribunal vide impugned award passed a common order allowing the claim case and holding the present appellant along with minor Raghuvendra Sahu responsible for payment of compensation jointly and severally awarding compensation as has been mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of this order.