HARPREET SINGH Vs. PALO DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 30.09.2012 around 10.10 a.m. the offending vehicle, a three-wheeler tempo bearing registration No.HR-68A-1733 registered in the name of Harpreet Singh appellant and being driven by respondent Mustaq met with an accident resulting in death of Ved Parkash working as a Safai Supervisor in Indian Railways earning Rs. 22,499 per month as salary. On lodging of claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act') learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula through its Award dated 08.07.2014 awarded a sum of Rs. 22,85,982 to the claimants along with interest @ 7% p.a. The same has been assailed by the registered owner of the offending vehicle.

(2.) Upon hearing Mr.S.K. Tripathi, Advocate representing the appellant, who has vociferously contended that since the vehicle was in possession of Mustaq, the owner cannot be held liable as there was an agreement to sell between them and has cited Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam and another , 2014 2 RCR(Civ) 591.

(3.) Admittedly, the appellant is a registered owner of the vehicle and which was being driven at the time of accident by Mustaq. Though the appellant has raked up on this plea in his written reply that he has sold the vehicle in question by Dhyan Singh but in spite of due opportunity to lead evidence the appellant owner has not been able to lead any evidence in his favour. As is reflected in the impugned Award in para No.18, learned Tribunal has held that this appellant, who was respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, took a stand that the offending vehicle was sold to respondent No.1 by Dhyan Singh and he had no concern with the same but neither he himself stepped into the witness box to testify nor examined said Dhyan Singh whose relevancy to the present case has not been brought about by any means and is neither a party to this case. This Court relies on titled as 'P.P. Mohammed v. K.Rajappan and others, 2003 ACJ 1595 and titled as 'Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari, 1997 ACJ 1148 to hold that a registered owner as well as the possessor of the vehicle at the time of the accident are equally liable, to pay the compensation. In this case the vehicle admittedly is not insured and so the registered owner and the possessor/driver in this case shall be jointly and severally liable to pay this compensation. At this juncture, none of the eventualities enshrined under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence is made out in favour of the appellant as he cannot be allowed to fill in the lacuna under the garb of this provision. Thus, conclusion drawn by the Tribunal qua issue No.2 to this effect needs to sustain. The appellant could have easily brought on the record any such agreement and admittedly the appellant himself is the registered owner and therefore, cannot wriggle out of such an obligation, especially when it is not the stand of the owner appellant that he has duly intimated regarding this transfer to the registering authority of the vehicle in terms of Section 50 of the Act.