RANJIT SINGH Vs. CHANDA KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party No. 1-appellant has preferred this appeal against judgment and award dated 17.7.2010 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Compensation Claims Tribunal, Saran at Chapra in Claim Case No. 4 of 1997 by which the appellant has been directed to indemnify the award. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the claimants. Opposite party No. 2-respondent 2nd Set has not appeared in spite of service of notice.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant sold the vehicle-Jeep bearing Registration No. BPP-8397 on 11.3.1996 to Mirtunjay Singh @ Raju Singh (respondent No. 7) for a consideration of Rs. 76,000/- and to this effect two sale fetters were executed and two affidavits were sworn separately; one by the appellant and another by the purchaser Mirtunjay Singh @ Raju Singh. These affidavits were sworn on 10.4.1996 before Annul Haque, Advocate Notary Public relating to transfer of the vehicle BPP-8397. A certificate was also given to this effect by the notary. Mirtunjay Singh-respondent No. 7 paid upto date tax on 13.12.1996 and on the basis of forged and collusive papers he got the vehicle released in his favour. In fact, on the same date, the insurance papers were prepared collusively which is apparent from the record of the case with a purpose to avoid liability of paying compensation. Once the vehicle, in question, was sold to respondent No. 7, the possession of the vehicle was also delivered to him much before the date of accident dated 3.12.1996. Therefore, the question of liability to pay the compensation rests upon respondent No. 7 and not upon the appellant. The appellant filed an application dated 13.1.2004 under Section 169(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and also under Order XVI, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. with a prayer to summon the special peon to bring the documents mentioned in the application which was allowed by the Court below, but the documents could not be produced. Thereafter, an application was filed on 25.2.2004 by the appellant for issuance of warrant against Mirtunjay Singh-respondent No. 7 for production of document in the court in respect of vehicle, in question, but the prayer was rejected. In fact, respondent No. 7 had withdrawn all the papers of the vehicle such as tax token, insurance policy, owner book on 10.1.1997 through his lawyer Shailendra Kumar Singh. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly appreciated the evidence and ignored the material evidence which was in favour of the appellant and also failed to consider that after the sale of the vehicle and delivery of possession to the purchaser the appellant has no liability against the vehicle.

(3.) Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that respondent No. 7 Mirtunjay Singh did not appear before the Tribunal, as such vide order dated 16.12.2003 the case was fixed for ex parte hearing against him. The main question before the learned Tribunal was to see as to whether due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Jeep No. BPP-8397, the occurrence took place causing the death of Ram Chander @ Bhuteli, the husband of respondent No. 1 Chanda Kuer, father of minor respondent Nos. 2 to 4, and son of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties in right perspective and has passed the order in accordance with law. He has further submitted that the claim of the appellant is that he transferred the offending vehicle on 11.3.1996 to respondent No. 7, as such he was required to get registration of the vehicle within 14 days of the transferred as provided under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the alleged sale has taken place within the same State.