GOPAL SINGH NEGI Vs. NETAR SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, dated 6.1.2004, vide which the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation in favour of the petitioner and as against the present appellant who was respondent No. 4 before the learned Tribunal. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 as claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes. Act, 1988, as against the appellant who was impleaded as respondent No. 4 and as against respondents No. 2 to 4 who were impleaded as respondents No. 1 to 3. The petitioner had alleged that on 5.10.1999 at about 9.00 P.M., he was going to his house on foot and he was hit by a Motor Cycle No. CH-01-J 7981 being driven by Anand Rajan rashly or negligently. The petitioner suffered injuries and filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. Three Lacs as compensation from the respondents who were allegedly the owners of the Motor Cycle in question. The person driving the Motor Cycle, namely, Anand Rajan died and as such, he was not impleaded as a party. It appears that the vehicle was not insured and as such, the Insurance Company was not impleaded as a party. The learned Tribunal tried the case and on conclusion held that the petitioner was entitled for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- from respondent No. 4 who was held to be the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. It was submitted that respondent No. 1, namely, Rajiv Kumar was the registered owner of the vehicle and the R.C. was still in his name as per his own statement. It was submitted that respondent No. 4 was impleaded as respondent on an application filed in this behalf but the evidence led do not prove that he had become the owner according to law or that he was the registered owner of the vehicle and as such, the findings of the learned Tribunal to the contrary are liable to be reversed and as such, present respondent No. 2 was liable to pay the amount in question.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the documents proved in evidence prove that the vehicle had been transferred in the name of respondent No. 4/appellant and as such, the findings of learned Tribunal do not call for an interference by this Court. To substantiate his plea, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 had relied upon the following decisions: