URMILA Vs. SUSHMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant appeal, the appellant assails the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-02 (North) in short 'the Tribunal' rendered in its judgment-award dated 23.08.2017, whereunder, the liability to pay compensation to the motor accident victim (s) inter alia has come to be fixed upon him, being the registered owner of the offending vehicle.

(2.) Concisely, the facts relevant to the appeal are that as on the date of occurrence of the incident of accident on 11.08.2006, when the accident occurred in which the motor cycle bearing registration no. DL 3S T 9655 in short 'the offending vehicle', was involved and in respect whereof, the impugned award has come to be made by the Tribunal, the appellant was continuing to be the registered owner thereof, though, prior to the subject incident, he had sold the offending vehicle to the respondent No.5-Sh. Dipty Singh, who himself was driving it when the accident occurred. The Tribunal, placing reliance upon P.P. Mohammed v. K. Rajappan and others 2003 ACJ 1595 followed by Pushpa alias Leela and others v. Shakuntala and others (2011) 2 SCC 240 , held that the appellant being the registered owner of the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident, she was liable to the third party on account of the use of such vehicle.

(3.) Taking note of the ratio of P.P. Mohammed and Pushpa's case (supra) as also the observations made by the Full Bench of this court in Anand Sarup Sharma v. P.P. Khurana and others AIR 1989 Delhi 88 and a few single bench judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a learned single Judge of this court in MAC Appeal No.524/2008 Sidharth Khetrapal v. Mohd. Hanif and Ors and other connected matters decided on 14.09.2017, has made categorical observations on the subject, as under: