RHEE PHARMACEUTICALS Vs. SUKHDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the Registered Owner of Car bearing registration no.PB-04-L-2544 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') assailing the Award dtd. 4/12/2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby compensation of Rs.45,20,776.00 has been granted to the claimants/respondents 1 to 4 herein, in a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Ld. Tribunal on appraisal of facts, pleadings and evidence concluded that the deceased-Gurpreet Singh had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 1/5/2012 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by respondent no.5. Appellant is registered owner of the offending vehicle, while respondent no.6 is the alleged purchaser of the same. Ld. Tribunal held appellant along with respondent no.5 herein/ driver of the offending vehicle, liable to pay the compensation as above, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

(3.) Ld. counsel for the appellant assails the Award on the ground that the Ld. Tribunal is in grave error in fastening joint and several liability on the appellant/ respondent no.2 in the claim petition, and respondent no.5/ respondent no.1 in claim petition-driver of the offending vehicle as, it had been established on record that the appellant had sold the offending vehicle to respondent no.6 herein. It is submitted that the appellant had led voluminous evidence before the ld. Tribunal to prove that he had sold the offending vehicle to respondent no.6 however, the said evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Ld. counsel refers to the Lower Court Record, in particular to Ex. R1 which is ITR of the appellant for the assessment year 2011-12/Financial Year 2010-11; Ex. R2 account ledger of the appellant firm from 1/4/2010 to 31/3/2011; and Ex.R3 delivery receipt dtd. 12/10/2010, to submit that from the said documents it is borne out that the appellant had sold the offending vehicle to respondent no.6 (respondent no.3 in the claim petition) for a sale consideration of Rs.90,000.00. It is submitted that a perusal of Ex.R3 shows that said car/ offending vehicle was even delivered to respondent no.6 on 12/10/2010 itself. It is submitted that accordingly, appellant had no concern with the offending vehicle after 12/10/2010 as they were neither owner, nor in possession, of the said car on the alleged date of accident i.e. on 1/5/2012.