VIPIN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. JAGWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is owner's appeal against the award dated 1.12.2004 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have been awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,82,000 in equal shares along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.

(2.) On 27.7.2003 one Ravinderbir Singh, aged about 29 years, working as a police constable in the Punjab Police died due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place between the motor cycle driven by him and a Yamaha motor cycle bearing registration No. PB 09-1491 being driven by Sukhwinder Singh, respondent No. 5. The widow, a minor son, the mother and the father of Ravinderbir Singh, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 respectively filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation for the death of Ravinderbir Singh. The petition was contested both by the driver and the owner of the offending motor cycle. The accident was admitted by both of them. Respondent No. 5, i.e., the driver took a plea that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Ravinderbir Singh himself. The appellant, however, took a stand that he was not the owner of the offending motor cycle on the date of accident as he had already sold the vehicle to one Gurnam Singh way back in the year 1996. Gurnam Singh had not got the vehicle transferred in his own name and rather had sold it to Sandeep Auto Deals, Gill Road, Ludhiana on 6.11.1997. The owner of Sandeep Auto Deals, Ludhiana further sold the said vehicle to one Anil Kumar Bhatia and the latter sold the same to one Lakhbir Singh. The vehicle changed hands thereafter from Lakhbir Singh to one Rinku Sondhi from Rinku Sondhi to one Kuldip Kumar on 13.12.2001 and Kuldip Kumar sold the same to Sukhwinder Singh, i.e., respondent No. 5. It was further stated in the written statement filed by the appellant that Sukhwinder Singh had also executed an affidavit dated 11.11.2003 whereby he had admitted that he had purchased the following motor cycle from Kuldip Kumar. The appellant thus specifically stated that he was not the owner of the offending vehicle at the relevant time and, therefore, no petition could legally be filed against him.

(3.) Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led on record by both the parties came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle driven by Sukhwinder Singh. Though all the four claimants, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were held to be legal representatives of the deceased, but in view of the statement of claimant Jagwant Kaur, i.e., the widow of the deceased that only she, her son and her mother-in-law were dependent upon the deceased, the award was passed in their favour only and Resham Singh, respondent No. 4, i.e., the father of the deceased was not held entitled to the compensation.