LUGGAGE POINT Vs. NAIM AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in SBCWP. No. 4512/2001 by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- and he was further directed to deposit the amount of interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with the Tribunal with interest thereon as ordered by the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

(2.) THE controversy essentially is between the appellant- petitioner and the respondent No. 1 Naim Ahmed who is the registered owner of vehicle No. RJ 14c-9784 to whom the vehicle had been transferred by the appellant/petitioner by seeking a delivery-note from the respondent No. 1 after receiving the payment for the vehicle which is dated 5th November 1996. However, the vehicle was not transferred with the RTO in favour of the respondent No. 1 Naim Ahmed although the vehicle had been delivered to him and he was plying the vehicle. THE vehicle admittedly caused an accident on 9th March 1999 as a result of which one Ramkaran died whose legal representatives filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur for determining the amount of compensation for causing death of Shri Ramkaran. During pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal, the amount of interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid to the legal representatives and the appellant being the registered owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the amount of compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. THE appellant before the Tribunal appeared and submitted that although the appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle, the said vehicle had been sold off to Shri Naim Ahmed after receiving the money from him and the vehicle was also delivered to him as already stated hereinbefore. THEreafter he has also taken the vehicle by virtue of supurdaginama given on 15th May 1999. In view of this factual position, the appellant filed an application for impleadment of the subsequent purchaser of the vehicle that is respondent No. 1 Naim Ahmed. THE application for impleadment of the subsequent purchaser was rejected vide order dated 20. 7. 2001, as a consequence of which the order passed earlier on 23. 6. 2000 directing the appellant to pay the interim compensation was to be made effective by the appellant. THE appellant, feeling aggrieved with by both the orders, filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge but the said writ petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge holding therein that the appellant being the registered owner of the vehicle, was liable to pay the interim compensation. THE learned Single Judge also imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000/- while dismissing the writ petition.

(3.) IT goes without saying that the question of liability of the appellant as against respondent No. 1 Naim Ahmed shall be finally decided by the Tribunal and if the appellant succeeds against Naim Ahmed he shall be liable to recover the amount from Naim Ahmed which of course will be decided eventually after conclusion of the proceeding.