AALOKE SURIE Vs. PRABHU RAM VERMA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. D.N. Grover (appellant in MAC.Appeal No. 280/2016) (claimant) suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 19.01.2009 and instituted an accident claim case (MACT Suit No. 804/2009) on 16.03.2009 seeking compensation. In the said claim case, he alleged that the accident had been caused due to negligent driving of motor cycle bearing registration No. DL-8SW-3571 (the motorcycle) driven by Satish Kumar Arya (the respondent in these appeals). He impleaded the said Satish Kumar Arya as the prime respondent to the claim case, he being, as per the claimant, the principal tort-feasor.

(2.) The motorcycle on the relevant date was registered in the name of one Suresh Kumar (the registered owner) who was also shown in the array of parties as a respondent before the Tribunal. On 12.08.2009, however, ASI Mahavir Singh, the Investigating Officer of the corresponding criminal case registered with Police Station Palam Village appeared before the Tribunal. At that time, Rajiv Dhiman, husband of Anju Dhiman (appellant in MAC. Appeal No. 642/2012) was also brought before the Tribunal and from the submissions made by the said Suresh Kumar and Rajiv Dhiman, it was revealed that the motorcycle had already been sold by said Suresh Kumar, for consideration, in favour of Anju Dhiman. On the basis of such facts brought to light, the Tribunal by order dated 12.08.2009 gave liberty to the claimant to implead Anju Dhiman as a party to the case, the name of Suresh Kumar having been struck off from the array. The claimant by amendment of the petition subsequently impleaded Anju Dhiman (appellant in MAC. Appeal No. 642/2012) as a respondent.

(3.) Though the insurance company (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) was also reflected as a respondent in the memo of parties before the Tribunal, it is clear from the record and the submissions made that the motorcycle was not covered by any valid insurance for third party risk for the period in question.