NEW UNITED TRANSPORT PVT LIMITED Vs. SAWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is by the New United Transport Private Limited arrayed as the 4th respondent before the Tribunal as an owner of bus bearing No.PAB 1847 that was said to have been involved in the motor accident. The accident was an admitted fact but the real question was the ownership as regards the vehicle and an examination of whether the particular vehicle which was involved in the accident was having a genuine registration No. PAB 1847.

(2.) THE bus bearing registration No. PAB 1847 was admittedly driven by a person who was arrayed as the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent was said to be the owner of the bus and the 3rd respondent was said to be the manager of the bus. Since it was contended that New United Transport Pvt. Ltd was the registered owner of the bus having the particular registration number, the 4th respondent was also made as party.

(3.) THERE were two lines of defence disclosed; one, by respondent Nos.1 and 3 namely the driver Narinder Singh and the Burj Transport who was stated to be the owner by the claimants that they had no connection at all with the bus bearing registration No.PAB 1847while the 4th respondent/appellant would state that they were really owners of bus No.PAB 1847 but their own vehicle had never at any point of time seized but it was actually plying till the year 1996 when it was condemned and also informed to the RTO Office. The original RC book had been surrendered to the transport authorities. In the course of criminal investigation and in the case against the driver, the driver had given a statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the criminal court admitting that he was the driver of the vehicle and at the relevant time, Burj Transport the 3rd respondent was the owner. But before the Tribunal a defence which was taken by respondent Nos.1 and 3 together was that the vehicle never belonged to them and that it was the 4th respondent/appellant who was the owner.