OM PARKASH SEKHIRI Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUMBLE of facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was injured in a road accident on 26.2.1972 caused by a truck owned by Pritam Singh and driven by Kuljit Singh. The injured was traveling in the truck when its tyre burst and he suffered the injuries. He claimed damages for the injuries suffered by him because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent-Kuljit Singh.

(2.) THE respondent-Pritam Singh controverted the facts stated by the claimant and further pleaded that the truck was sold away to one Sadhu Ram and Dalip Singh on February 22,1972. i.e., four days prior to the date of the accident. No written statement was filed by Sadhu Ram and Dalip Singh. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent. The learned Single Judge, however, vide impugned order found the alleged/claimed owner of the truck, namely Sadhu Ram and Dalip Singh, liable for compensation to the appellant. In fact, the truck owner-and-driver namely Pritam Singh and Kuljit Singh respectively as well as the Insurance Company were absolved of the liability, inter alia, on the ground that the truck was sold away before the date of the accident and the purchaser namely Sadhu Ram and Dalip Singh were not the insured persons and since the truck was transferred and the insurance in respect thereof was never transferred to the purchaser, the Insurance Company was not liable. It was further held that as the truck was sold by the principal owner, he is also not liable.

(3.) AFTER going through the evidence read out by the Counsel for the parties as well as the pleadings and considering the submissions made by the Counsel for the appellant, we find force in the contentions raised by the appellant. In our considered view, there is no reliable evidence on record on the basis of which a finding can be returned that the truck in question was, in fact, sold to Sadhu Ram by Pritam Singh. It would be reasonable to raise an adverse inference against Pritam Singh because of his non-appearance as a witness to support his claim on oath that the truck was, in fact, transferred. We are fortified in this view of ours by decision in LPA No. 177/1973 decided on October 15, 1975. As it has been found as a fact on appreciation of evidence that the truck was never sold to Sadhu Ram and Dalip Singh, Pritam Singh as well as the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of their liability. The finding with respect to negligence as well as the quantum of compensation has not been challenged by either of the parties during the course of arguments in this appeal or otherwise.