RAHMAT KHAN Vs. SUBHANI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will also dispose of SB Civil Revision Petition No. 844/92 "Rahmat Khan Vs. Kamaluddin & ors". The brief facts are as under: -

(2.) The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had passed on the possession of the bus in question to Jagdish after receiving part payment of the amount of consideration of sale and, as such, Jagdish had become liable for making the payment and no liability could be fastened on the petitioner.

(3.) It is not disputed that after the accident the bus was seized by the police and, on an application having been moved by the petitioner, the possession of the bus was given to the petitioner by the learned court on superdari. At this stage, it has not to be gone into whether the bus was taken on superdari only on the ground that he petitioner was the registered owner although he had passed on all its rights to Jagdish who was in possession of the bus and to whom he had agreed to sell the bus and the bus was being driven by respondent No.5-Ramesh Chand as the driver of Jagdish and not as the driver of the petitioner. All these questions will be decided by the learned Tribunal after the evidence is produced by the parties. Prima facie, the petitioner being the registered owner of the bus and also having taken possession thereof from the court on superdari after the accident in my view, the learned Tribunal rightly held him liable to pay the interim compensation under section 140 of the Act and no interference is called for in either of the two revision petitions.