NARESH KUMAR Vs. ISHWAR SINGH AND OTHERSPUNLR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals filed by the owner in two claim petitions disputing his liability as he had sold the vehicle prior to the accident and claims that the responsibility of payment of compensation could not be placed upon him.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant contends that Naresh was the registered owner and he had sold the vehicle to Jaipal on 20.10.2011 and the accident had taken place on 5.12.2011 and they had examined the witnesses and the affidavit had been produced. The counsel further contends that the vehicle was not insured and the Tribunal has misread the evidence and had wrongly placed the responsibility of payment of compensation upon respondents No. 1 and 2. The counsel had referred to the statement made by Naresh and the statement made by Criminal Ahlmad RW-2 who had stated that the application for Supardari was filed by Jaipal as GPA of the owner.

(3.) The counsel also submits that since the ownership had not been changed in the records of the registering authority, therefore Jaipal was shown as GPA of the owner. Reliance was placed upon H.D.Chandrappa versus Hanumakka and others, 2014 ACJ 402.