Rohtan Singh and ors. Vs. Chander Kala and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- rakesh kumar garg, j.c.m. no. 15111-cii of 20081. amplication is allowed subject to all just exceptions.f.a.o. no. 2477 of 2008 (o&m;).2. this judgment of mine shall dispose of f.a.o. nos. 2477 and 2478 of.2008 as two claim applications i.e. m.a.c.t. case nos. 95 and 96 of 2005 arising out of one accident were disposed of by common award dated 12.2.2008 which has been impugned in both these appeals on a common question of law.3. vide impugned award, the tribunal held that harkesh son of hoshiar singh died and vinod son of badir received injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place due to rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing registration no. dl-3cf-0611 by respondent no. 1 om parkash and consequently held me appellant liable to pay the compensation being the registration owner of the offending vehicle.4. the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in these appeals is that the appellant cannot be held liable! to make the payment of compensation to the claimants as he was not the owner of the vehicle in question at the time of accident as he had already sold the vehicle to one randhir son of hukam ram r/o village amadlpur who had further sold the same to one santosh son of partap singh r/o ladain tehsil and distt. jhajjar and thereafter, he further sold the vehicle in question to one om parkash @ chandef parkash r/o of village sehlanga tehsil and distt. jhajjar and therefore, the tribunal erred at law while passing the impugned award.5. the tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the appellant failed to place on record any evidence in the shape of any agreement etc. to prove that he had sold the vehicle in question to randhir singh and thereby he being the registered owner of the offending vehicle was liable to discharge the award in the first instance. the tribunal also observed that the appellant may get the amount of compensation recovered from his subsequent vendees. the relevant observations of the tribunal in this regard are as under:after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, i am of the view that respondent no. 2 has admitted his ownership of the vehicle in question, though he pleaded its subsequent transfer to randhir singh son of hukam ram by way of sale and in this respect he has also produced an affidavit which was duly attested by the executive magistrate. the owner of the vehicle has been defined in section 2(30) of the motor vehicles act, 'as the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. where the vehicle in question is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement to hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement has been shown to be its owner' respondent no. 2 has furnished his affidavit as ex.r1 but he has not furnished any agreement that he had sold the vehicle in question subsequently to randhir singh and randhir singh sold it to santosh and santosh to respondent no. 1 randhir and santosh were not made party by the petitioners. rohtan singh respondent no. 2 has not produced any agreement to prove that he had sold the vehicle in question to randhir singh. the vehicle in question was found in possession of om parkash, respondent no. 1. but there is no agreement or registration certificate on record showing om parkash as its owner. in such circumstances, respondent no. 2 i.e. rohtan singh, the registered owner of the vehicle shall be deemed to be its owner as per the provisions of section 2(30) of the motor vehicles act. hence, he is liable to discharge the onus of the award in the first instance. however, he may get the same recovered from his subsequent vendees. issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against respondent no. 1 and issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against respondent no. 2.6. undisputedly, there is no other evidence produced on record by the appellant except his own affidavit ex.rw1/a to prove subsequent transfer of the offending vehicles to randhir singh son of hukam ram by way of sale. to my mind, the aforesaid affidavit ex.rw1/a furnished by the appellant to prove the subsequent sale in favour of randhir singh was not sufficient especially in view of the fact that randhir singh and santosh singh, the alleged subsequent purchasers of the offending vehicle were not arrayed as a party before the tribunal. even issue no. 3 regarding maintainability of the petition was not pressed by the appellant during the course of the arguments. moreover, the tribunal has also observed that the appellant may recover the compensation amount from his subsequent vendees. faced with mis situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has halfheartedly raised an argument that as per the findings of the tribunal, the accident has been caused by respondent om parkash who vas driving the offending vehicle and therefore the liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened upon him alone. the appellant was admittedly the registered owner of t e offending vehicle. he being the owner of the vehicle in question was vicariously liable for the damage caused in the accident by the driver of the vehicle. sh. om parkash who was found, in possession of the aforesaid vehicle and therefore. i find no merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.7. thus, i find no fault in the impugned award.8. both the appeals are dismissed.