SUKHVIR SINGH Vs. KULDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, against the Award dated 15.5.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, has been filed by Sukhbir Singh, who has been held to be owner in possession of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.

(2.) The claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of deceased Hardev Singh, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 11.7.2003. He was coming from his native Village Amloh Majri to Ludhiana on a scooter bearing registration No. PB-10-AA-3432. He was being closely followed by his son Jasvir Singh and Banarsi Dass on another scooter. At about 9.30 P.M. when the deceased was at some distance from Kashmir restaurant, the offending vehicle i.e. Metador bearing registration No. PAN-1807 came in a rash and negligent manner from Khanna side and hit the scooter of the deceased from back side. The offending vehicle fled from the spot after causing the accident. As a result of the accident, Hardev Singh fell down and became unconscious. He was taken to Sidhu Hospital by his son and Banarsi Dass and thereafter he was shifted to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital where he expired on 14.7.2003. An FIR bearing No. 101 dated 14.7.2003 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was lodged by the son of the deceased. The legal heirs of deceased Hardev Singh filed claim petition alleging that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues :-

(3.) While deciding issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. The onus to prove issue No. 3 was on respondent No. 6 and issue No. 4 on appellant and respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 6 Bant Singh, in his written statement, stated that claim petition is not maintainable for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. According to him, he had sold the vehicle in question to appellant Sukhvir Singh. On merits, it was stated that no accident had taken place with the offending vehicle. It was further stated that Sukhvir Singh made a statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code during the investigation of FIR No. 101 dated 14.7.2003, to the effect that he is owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No. 5 has been working with him as driver for the last more than 10 years.