PRATAP SINGH Vs. SHISH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award dated April 30, 19^0, of Shri S N. Kapoor, acting as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which the claim of the appellant was allowed to the extent of Rs. 20,000.00 with costs and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application till realisation against only Shish Pal, who was the driver of the vehicle had allegedly caused the accident which resulted in fatal injury to Chander Bhan, aged about 19 years at that time.

(2.) The claim petition was brought against driver of the vehicle Shish Pal, the owner of the vehicle Mohinder Singh and the New India Assurance Company. The Tribunal, however, gave the finding that the claimants had not been able to prove that Mohinder Singh was ^ the owner of the vehicle in question and the said vehicle was having any insurance policy issued by the New India Assurance Company and thus, the claim was not awarded against the said Mohinder Singh and the New India Assurance Company. The Tribunal has also not awarded any claim in favour of father of the deceased on the basis that under the Hindu Succession Act father is not one of the heirs of the deceased.

(3.) This appeal is being contested before me only on behalf of the New India Assurance Company. Initially Mr. S.R. Yadav had appeared for the owner as well as the driver of the vehicle before the Tribunal and he had also filed the Power of Attorney on behalf of owner of the vehicle in this Court but later on it appears that the New India Assurance Company while engaging Mr. Manmohan Sarin, Advocate, has also given him the Power of Attorney signed by the owner of the vehicle. However, Mr. Sarin has not addressed any arguments on behalf of the owner of the vehicle and has stated that it was in routine that the insurance company got the signatures of the owner of the vehicle on the Power of Attorney by which Mr. Sarin was appointed as counsel. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sarin both inform that Mr. S R. Yadav, Advocale, who was having Power of Attorney, also appeared on behalf of Mohinder Singh, had told that no instructions are being received from the owner. Mr. Sarin has sent registered notices to Mohinder Singh in order to with- draw from the case on his behalf but the registered notices have come back unserved and Mr. Sarin states that he has received no further instructions from Mohinder Singh and thus, he does not represent him.