DURGA PRASAD Vs. MAHILA RAMSAKHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Gupta vehemently argued that there was no material before the Tribunal to reach at the finding that the tractor CIG -3964 owned by the petitioner was involved in the accident or that the accident was caused by that tractor. We are not at all satisfied by the submissions because there is clear cut finding that from police investigation it had come before the Court that CIG -3964 was a tractor involved in the accident and claimant's husband died in that accident. Reliance is placed by Shri Gupta on Annexure P-6, which is FIR and in that there is mention of one tractor MP-06-8459. Taking benefit of omission of the registration number of other tractor and case is boostered and built up before this Court to submit that there can be no presumption against the petitioner. We do not think if at this stage on merits those contentions can be considered. It will be obviously open to the petitioner to establish in the course of trial of the petition that it was not his vehicle which was responsible for the accident and also that he was not responsible for the accident on the ground that the driver was not his employee. Those are contentions which can be considered in disposing of finally the claim on merits. At the stage of interim compensation only position in terms of the statutory provisions to be seen is whether the owner of the offending vehicle is to be saddled prima facie tentatively liability of compensation. Our attention is drawn to decision is United India Assurance Cpo v. Sukhiyabai (AIR 1992 MP 53) wherein the view taken is - during the course of trial. of the claim, the Tribunal may even shift the burden which finally determining the liability and make order of restitution even in favour of the person, who had earlier been saddled with liability for compensation. Therefore, the instant petitioner is not remediless and at this stage we do not find any scope for interference.

(2.) However, one contention which Shri Gupta has made deserves attention for making the scope of the impugned order clear. There is some ambiguity in the order but enforcement of the award. It is complained by Shri Gupta, that award may be enforced also against a person not statutorily liable. It is true that only the insurer or the "owner" can be held liable to discharge the liability for interim compensation and not any other person. Therefore, the liability under the impugned order can be enforced only against owner of the tractor and that shall be so enforced.