(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi dated 15.11.2007 as modifed by order dated 18.01.2008 passed in Suit No.267/2007 titled as "Ganesh Bahadur Kami & Anr. vs. Raj Pal & Ors.".
(2.) Concisely, the facts are that on 27.09.2004, the respondents No.1 and 2 filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the untimely demise of one Shri Nar Bahadur Kami, on 20.10.1996, in a road accident allegedly caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of a TSR bearing No.DL-1R 5965 driven by the respondent No.3 wherein the appellant was impleaded as owner of the vehicle, and it was asserted that at the time of the accident the TSR was being driven by the respondent No.3-driver under the instructions, supervision and employment of the appellant.
(3.) In response to the notice of the institution of the petition, the appellant filed his written statement, denying any liability to pay the claimed amount to the respondents No.1 and 2, and submitting therein that he was not the registered owner of the aforesaid TSR on the date of the accident, nor he was in control of the vehicle, nor was the driver of the TSR under his employment or control. Soon thereafter, an application was filed by the respondents No.1 and 2/claimants under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, for impleading one Ramhit, son of Sukhari Ram as the owner of the vehicle on the ground that this fact was not known to them earlier. The said application was allowed by the Claims Tribunal and the owner Ramhit was impleaded as the party-respondent in the Claim Petition. On 09.05.2006, however, he [(Ramhit) (who is the respondent No.4 herein] was proceeded ex parte and issues were framed. Significantly, no issue was framed by the learned Tribunal on the question as to whether the appellant on the date of the accident was in possession and control of the vehicle in order to be treated as an owner thereof.