BHARAT SINGH Vs. NIRANJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the claimant -appellant, challenging the impugned Award dated 25.8.1998, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (in short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition with regard to the damage of the tractor was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellant being the registered owner is entitled for the claim of the damage of the tractor, which occurred in a road accident. The sale consideration of the tractor was not paid by the subsequent purchaser, the ownership was not transferred in the name of subsequent purchaser.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent -Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. It is admitted fact that he sold the tractor in question to one Sumer Singh. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) IT is proved on record that the driver of the truck -trailor had been rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle. But, the appellant, in his claim petition, mentioned that the tractor had already been sold to one Sumer Singh, prior to the accident. Moreover, the tractor was not in possession of the appellant at the time of accident. Under the provisions of Section 166, sub section (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, only the owner of the property is competent to file application for compensation regarding damage to the vehicle. Definition of 'owner' is given in section 30(2) of the Act, which reads as under: -