UMRAO SINGH ALIAS UMRA Vs. RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SARV Sh. Umrao Singh and Ved Parkash, driver and owner of the vehicle respectively, have filed this appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, whereby compensation of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded to the claimant and made recoverable from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (now appellants). Respondent No. 3. Insurance Company was not held liable. This appeal was admitted by the Division Bench vide order dated December 5, 1985 against Insurance Company.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was filed by Raj Singh seeking compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 27.1.1983 in the area of village Makrani. As per version given, he was going from Kanina to village Kheri Sarwal on motor cycle No. HRC 1966 which he was driving himself. His allegation is that he was hit by truck No. HRR 8436 which was coming from the opposite side and was being driven by Ved Parkash. Umrao Singh was impleaded as owner of the truck whereas Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company as respondent No. 3. Ved Parkash and Umrao Singh denied the factum of accident or that the same took place with their truck bearing No. HRR 8436. Insurance Company resisted the claim on the ground that vehicle has been transferred before the date of the accident and this information that the vehicle has been transferred was never given to them and hence no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company.

(3.) IT is this finding of the Tribunal by which the Insurance Company has been absolved of its liability which is being challenged in this appeal. According to the appellants, the Tribunal has, indeed, erred in law in coming to the conclusion that on the date of accident i.e. 27.1.1983 the vehicle was owned by Umrao Singh. This finding, according to the appellants, has been solely recorded on account of the fact that he has been impleaded as respondent which by itself cannot be construed as implying that on the date of accident Umrao Singh was owner of the vehicle which caused the accident. According to the appellants, the vehicle bearing No. HRR 8436 was owned by one Daulat Ram who had got it insured for the period from 6.4.1982 to 5.4.1983. This factual aspect is not even denied by the Insurance Company. This being the factual position, the Tribunal erred in law in absolving the Insurance Company of its liability despite the Insurance Company Exhibit R-2.