TULSI DASS Vs. PANNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Panna Lal, who is the first respondent in this appeal, filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 by way of damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 2nd May, 1962. According to the averments in the said application, Panna Lal was travelling on the pillin of the scooter driven by his brother Harbas Lal at about5.15p.rn. When they reached near the crossing of Rohtak Road and Faiz Road a truck bearing registration No. DLG 4726 which was being driven by one Pyare Singh, who is respondent No. 2 in this appeal, rashly and negligently knocked down the scooter as a result which Panna Lal was dragged to a distance of 20 or 25 paces and received multiple injuries including fractures. He claimed the said amount of compensation jointly and severally from Tulsi Dass; the first appellant herein, the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, the second appellant herein, Mr. Pyare Singh, to United India General Finance Private Limited and M/s. Delhi Saharanpur Road Carrier Private Limited, respondents 2, 3 and 4 respectively herein. The compensation was claimed from the appellants and respondents 2 to 4 because the second respondent was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Mr. Tuisi Dass, the first appellant, was the registered owner of the vehicle, the second appellant was the insurer of the said vehicle, the 3rd respondent, because the vehicle was the subject-matter of a hire-purchase agreement with the said finance company and the 4th respondent, because the insurance policy in respect of the vehicle originally stood in the name of the 4th respondent.

(2.) The common ground on which the claim was resisted by all these persons was that the accident took place not because of any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle but only because of the rashness and negligence on the part of Harbans Lal who was driving the scooter. In addition, Tulsi Dass contended that although the vehicle stood registered in his name with the Road Transport Authority, he was not the real owner of the vehicle, he having sold the vehicle to Pyare Singh even prior to the date of the accident. The Insurance Company resisted the claim on the ground that the insurance policy was not in favour of Tulsi Dass but was in favour of M/s. Delhi-Saharanpur Road Carrier Private Limited, that the policy was transferred in favour of Tulsi Dass from 7th July, 1962 i.e., subsequent to the date of the accident, that Tulsi Dass had in turn sold the vehicle to Pyare Singh before the date of the accident, that Pyare Singh who was the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident was not insured with them and that, therefore, they were not liable to pay any compensation. The Finance company, respondent No. 3, disowned any liability for the compensation on the ground that under the hire-purchase agreement the vehicle had been given to one Ram Lubhaya. Respondent No. 4 also disowned any liability for the compensation on the ground that on the date of the accident it had nothing to do with the vehicle, the insurance policy having been already transferred in favour of Tulsi Dass with effect from 24th July, 1961.

(3.) On these pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :-