SATPAL Vs. RATTAN LAL AGGARWAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been preferred by the appellant (respondent no.2 before the Tribunal) who has taken the plea that the Tribunal wrongly held him to be the owner of the vehicle and the Tribunal failed to look into account the testimony of the appellant wherein he had clearly stated that Mohinder Singh was the owner of the vehicle and the appellant was in service of Mohinder Singh.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal are that vehicle number DNH 6978, a Maruti van got involved in an accident on 24th March, 1991 resulting into injuries to the respondent and death of one of the persons. A case under Section 279, 337, 304 A IPC was registered in this respect. The LRs of the deceased and injured persons filed a claim petition making the present appellant as one of the respondents. The appellant was stated to be the owner of the vehicle by the claimants. In the written statement, the appellant took the stand that he was not the owner of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal, however, came to conclusion that the claimants successfully proved that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle. The investigating officer had served a notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act to the registered owner of the vehicle and in reply to this notice under Section 133, the respondent no.2 filed a reply stating that his Maruti Van was being driven by driver Dharam Pal son of Hazari Lal on 24th March, 1991 at about 6 pm. The Tribunal concluded that respondent no.2 (appellant herein) was liable to pay compensation.

(3.) It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the Mohinder Singh was the registered owner as per the registration certificate of Maruti Van. A perusal of the registration certificate would show that the registered owner was M/s Ujala Leasing Company Limited and not Mohinder Singh. However, a receipt has been placed on record by the appellant showing the Mohinder Singh was paying the installments to M/s Ujala Leasing Company. His contention is that it was Mohinder Singh who was the owner of the vehicle and therefore the learned Tribunal wrongly came to conclusion that the appellant was the owner.