PRITHVI SINGH Vs. KELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is at the instance of the owner of a tractor who claimed that he had sold the tractor before the accident and that in any event, he was not responsible for the accident for the motor vehicle dashed against the tractor when it was stationary. There was also an argument that the number of the tractor trolly was not initially recorded in the FIR but was later recorded. In my view, it is wholly irrelevant, for, the identity of the tractor trolly which was sufficiently brought out through evidence. The fact that it was not referred to at the time when the FIR was lodged makes no difference. The time of accident was 7.00 p.m. and the contention of the motorcyclist that there were no reflectors in the tractor trolly cannot be true or at least ought not to be relevant at all when there ought to have been still sunlight. It was evident from the place of accident that there had been tyre marks of the motorcycle that showed that the motorcyclist was unable to control the vehicle and stop the same before hitting the tractor -trolly. If the Tribunal had found that the vehicle had been wrongly parked and made the appellant liable as registered owner, then for answering the claim of the claimants who were representatives of the pillion rider, a mere contention by the owner that the motorcyclist was responsible was not sufficient nor was the evidence sufficient that the motorcyclist was a necessary party. As far as the pillion rider was concerned, it was a case of composite negligence and he was at liberty to file the case against any one of the persons responsible for the accident. The motorcyclist or its owner were not necessary parties. The liability cast on the owner of the tractor was, therefore, perfectly justified and I find no reason to interfere with the same.

(2.) IF the owner of the tractor himself had not taken steps to implead the motorcyclist as a party in the petition filed by the claimants, then the remedy will only be for the owner of the tractor to file an independent suit for contribution after satisfying the award. Any observation made in the absence of the motorcyclist as a party to the proceeding making a claim for compensation by a third party cannot bind him and therefore, any observations made by the Tribunal shall not be taken as final as regards the culpability of the respective driver of owner of the tractor -trolly and the motorcyclist. Reserving to the appellant the liberty to file an independent petition in the manner referred to above, the appeal challenging the compensation awarded against him is dismissed.