ATUL SINGHAL Vs. JAGDISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The first respondent is stated to have suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 11.03.2010 on account of negligent driving of two wheeler scooter bearing registration No.DL- 7S-B-4408 (the scooter). He instituted accident claim case (Suit No.317/10/2010) on 07.06.2010 in the wake of Accident Information Report (AIR) submitted by the police pursuant to the evidence gathered during investigation into corresponding FIR No.64/2010 of Police Station New Friends Colony, New Delhi. In the said claim petition, the appellant herein was impleaded as second respondent with the description that he was the registered owner of the scooter on the relevant date, per the averments of the claimant, the scooter being driven at the relevant point of time by the third respondent Naim Akhtar (wrongly described as Nadim Akhtar). The appellant upon notice appeared and, by his pleadings seeking to put in contest, claimed that he had already sold off the scooter for consideration on 23.09.2008 to Kartar Singh son of Pratap Singh, resident of 54-D, DDA flats, Mata Sundri Road, New Delhi. He submitted some documents evidencing such sale. Pursuant to such pleadings, the claimant made amendment to the claim petition impleading the said Kartar Singh son of Pratap Singh as third respondent, he now being the second respondent in the appeal.

(2.) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal), by judgment dated 10.04.2015, accepted the claim for compensation on the principle of fault liability holding the third respondent negligent, this being the cause for collision. In para 19, the tribunal also recorded Kartar Singh (the second respondent herein) to be vicariously liable he being the owner. Thereafter, in para 20, the tribunal added that since respondents had suffered the proceedings ex-parte, notices be issued to them calling them upon to deposit the awarded amount. It is on the basis of such observations covering all the three respondents in the inquiry that liability was assumed to be fastened against the appellant, proceedings taken out in its wake for recovery giving rise to the cause of action for the present appeal to be preferred before this court.

(3.) The service on third respondent has not been effected in the appeal. Since he was held to be the principal tortfeasor, he not having challenged the said finding on record or the directions holding him responsible to pay compensation on such count, given the nature of dispute brought out from the present appeal, his presence and service is dispensed with. As per the record, the second respondent Kartar Singh was duly served on 27.01.2017 for 09.02.2017. He has failed to appear to put in contest to the appeal. He is set ex parte.