(1.) This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 19.5.2015 and the First Appellate Court dated 6.6.2016; by which the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of monies has been decreed for Rs.2,01,650/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum.
(2.) The subject suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff pleading that he was the owner of a bus bearing registration no.DEP-6967 and which was transferred to the appellant/defendant in terms of the documentation Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6. Possession of the bus was also delivered to the appellant/defendant under these documents dated 12.12.1985. It is further pleaded in the plaint that while the bus was under the control and possession of the appellant/defendant being driven through his agent Sh. Nirmal Singh, the same met with an accident on 30.9.1986 with a two wheeler scooter bearing registration no.DEJ-7599 resulting in the death of the scooter driver Sh. Raghubir Parshad Gupta. As a result of the death of Sh. Raghubir Parshad Gupta in the accident, the legal heirs of Sh. Raghubir Parshad Gupta filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and in which proceedings the respondent/plaintiff under a compromise paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Raghubir Parshad Gupta. It is this amount which is claimed in the present suit from the appellant/defendant.
(3.) Appellant/Defendant contested the suit and pleaded that he was not the registered owner of the bus nor possession of the bus was ever given to the appellant/defendant. Appellant/defendant, however, admitted his signatures on the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 but only said that he had signed the same without reading its contents. It was also contended by the appellant/defendant that he was not in possession of the subject bus when the accident occurred and also that he had no concern with the driver Sh. Nirmal Singh who was driving the bus on the date of the accident. Suit was accordingly prayed to be dismissed as respondent/plaintiff was the registered owner of the bus.