MAHABIR SINGH WALIA Vs. SUDESH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the appeal is restored to file.

(2.) THE appeal is by the owner and driver of the tractor attached to the trailer that was involved in a collision with Tata sumo car in which the deceased was travelling. The claimants contended in their petition that both the drivers of the vehicles were responsible for the accident, but at the trial, the evidence was led to the effect that it was the driver of the tractor, who was solely responsible for the accident. The driver of the tractor himself gave evidence stating that the tractor was going on the main road, while the Tata sumo car came on the main road from the side road and caused collision by coming on the wrong side. The mechanical report showed that only the Tata sumo car had been damaged on the driver's side but no part of the tractor had been seriously damaged or dented. The driver also wanted to contend that the driver of the Tata sumo car did not have headlight on when the accident took place at night. The contention of the respondents was sought to be supported through a rough sketch, which according to the driver of the tractor, showed that the accident could not have been by the negligent driving of the tractor.

(3.) I also noticed that the owner of the tractor has exposed a third party to a gross risk of difficulty in recoveries by not taking a compulsory insurance which he was bound to have taken. The police must have even registered a case against the owner and driver for breach of Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I would not try to reopen this issue at this length of time but I would only point out to say that both the owner and driver of the uninsured vehicle were not entitled to any sympathy from this court. The appeal is dismissed.