Allowed

Kirpal Singh v. Poonam and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2012FAO/2271/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant vehicle-owner appealed against an award imposing joint liability. Bench reversed Tribunal finding, held registered owner (not appellant) liable to pay compensation as vehicle remained in his name per Motor Vehicles Act, and ordered recovery from him.

What did the court decide?

The finding on issue No.2 reversed; recovery of compensation effected from the registered owner; statutory amount deposited refunded to appellant.

Kirpal Singh Vs Poonam and Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.2271 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.2271 of 2010 ( O&M) In MACT Case No.70 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.4.2012

Kirpal Singh

...Appellant

Versus

Poonam Devi & others

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate, for Mr. Ajit Malik Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta Advocate for Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL

¶14

C.M. No.11026-C-I of 2010

¶15

For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the delay of 142 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶16

Main Appeal

¶17

The appellant preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 9.9.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gurgaon, whereby an amount of Rs.5,58,400/- was awarded on account of death of Sukh Pal in a vehicular accident and the liability was fastened upon appellant Kirpal Singh (owner of the offending vehicle) and Rohtas (driver of the offending vehicle) to pay the compensation to the claimants jointly and severaly.

¶18

FAO No.2271 of 2010

¶19

-2-

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that on 14.3.2007, deceased Sukh Pal was driving his motor cycle bearing No HR26Z-1029. When he reached near village Chandu, a Tata-709 bearing registration No. HR-51-GA-0288 coming from wrong side struck against the motorcycle of the deceased and turned turtle after it struck against a tractor trolley. As a result thereof, Sukh Pal died on the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the place of occurrence.

¶21

Claimants-appellants preferred claim petition bearing No.70 of 2008 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gurgaon.

¶22

From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-

¶23

1.Whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. HR-51GA-0288, by respondent No.2. as alleged? OPP

¶24

2.If the issue No.1. Is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to any amount as compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.

¶25

3.Whether the petitioners have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present petition? OPR

¶26

4.Relief.

¶27

The learned Tribunal decided the claim petition on 9.9.2009, and awarded an amount of Rs.5,58,400/- on account of death of Sukh Pal in a vehicular accident and fastened the liability on appellant Kirpal Singh (owner of the offending vehicle)

¶28

-3-

¶29

FAO No.2271 of 2010

¶30

and Rohtas (driver of the offending vehicle) to pay the compensation to the claimants jointly and severaly.

¶31

Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant Kirpal Singh (owner of the offending vehicle) came up in the present appeal for setting aside the impugned award.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence produced on record properly and passed the impugned award without properly appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Tribunal wrongly decided issue No.2 by observing that the appellant and driver of the vehicle are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. The Tribunal has wrongly relied upn the statement of appellant U/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.76 dated 14.3.2007, which does not come within the definition of substantive evidence. It has been proved on record that Atma Ram S/o Gobind Ram was the registered owner of the offending vehicle No.HR-51-GS-0288, at the time of the accident, and no evidence was placed on record to prove that the offending vehicle was ever sold to the appellant. The findings of learned Tribunal on issue No.2 holding the appellant liable to pay the compensation may be set aside.

¶33

On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent states that neither the appellant nor the driver of the offending vehicle stepped into the witness box to defend themselves. It has not been proved on record that the offending vehicle No. HR-51GA-0288 was taken on superdari by someone.

¶34

-4-

¶35

FAO No.2271 of 2010

¶36

The appellant was the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and Rohtash driver of the vehicle was under his employment. He further prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶38

In Pushpa @ Leela and others v. Shakuntala and Others, 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 616, Hon'ble the Apex Court while dealing with somewhat similar proposition of law, where the owner did not take any step for the change of the name of owner in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, in paras 13 and 14 observed as under:-

¶39

“13 Again, in P.P.Mohammed v. K. Rajappan and Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 624, this Court examined the same issue under somewhat similar set of facts as in the present case. In paragraph 4 of the decision, this Court observed and held as follows:-

¶40

“4. These appeals are filed by the appellants. The insurance company has chosen not to file any appeal. The question before this Court is whether by reason of the fact that the vehicle has been transferred to Respondent No. 4 and thereafter to Respondent No.5, the appellant got absolved from liability to the third person who was injured. This question has been answered by this Court in T.V.Jose (Dr.) v. Chacko P.M. Wherein it is held that even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose name the vehicle stands in RTO records, from

¶41

FAO No.2271 of 2010

¶42

-5-

¶43

liability to a third person. We are in agreement with the view expressed therein. Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that the appellant stands absolved of his liability to a third person. So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person”

¶44

“14. The decision in Dr. T.V.Jose was rendered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But having regard to the provisions of Section 2(30) and section 50 of the Act, as noted above, the ratio of the decision shall apply with equal force to the facts of the case arising under the 1988 Act. On the basis of these decisions, the inescapable conclusion is that Jitender Gupta, whose name continued in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the truck was equally liable for payment of the compensation amount. Further, since an insurance policy in respect of the truck was taken out in his name he was indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.”

¶45

As per the record, undisputedtly, Atma Singh S/o Gobind Ram was the registered owner of the offending vehicle No. HR51-GA-0288. It has come on record that Atma Ram, sold the vehicle to his real brother namely Charan Dass vide agreement to sell Ex R-2, dated 18.7.2001, who further sold it to the appellant on 27.10.2006. But the registeration remained in the name of Charan Dass. No intimation was ever furnished to the State Transport Authority by Atma Ram regarding the above sale. Moreover, Charan Dass has not been examined before the trial Court to prove that he has sold the offending vehicle to the appellant. Thus, it can be safelely inferred that the Atma Ram

¶46

FAO No.2271 of 2010

¶47

-6-

¶48

was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident, therefore the liability to pay the compensation arising out of the accident of the offending vehicle has rightly been fastened upon the registered owner i.e. Atma Ram.

¶49

Keeping in view the above, the present appeal is allowed. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.2 is hereby reversed. The recovery of the compensation amount be effected from the registered owner i.e. Atma Ram-respondent No.5. The statutory amount, if any, deposited at the time of filing of this appeal be refunded to the appellant.

¶50

23.4.2012 aarti

¶51

( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

Kirpal Singh v. Poonam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirpal Singh v. Poonam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Aggarwal Refractory P. Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Other

Shimla Devi Vs Pardeep and Ors.

Amritpal Singh & Anr. Vs Gurmit Kaur & Anr.

Prem Devi and Ors. Vs Santokh Singh and Ors.

Anuj Vs Joginder Pal and Ors.

Dayawanti Vs Mukesh Sharma and Ors.