FAO No.3632 of 2008(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.3632 of 2008(O&M) Hawa Singh and another ... Appellants VERSUS Gurmeet Kaur and others ... Respondents Date of Decision : October 05, 2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vijay Singh, Advocate for Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the Appellants. None for the respondents. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal is directed against the award dated 25.1.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.8,10,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, in favour of claimants / respondents No.1 to 3 (herein referred as the claimants) and against the appellants jointly and severally. The said award has been challenged by the appellants, who are the alleged owners of the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor-trolley bearing Reg.No.HYC-3586. The allegations as mentioned in the claim petition, preferred by the claimants have been controverted by the respondents. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- FAO No.3632 of 2008(O&M) [ 2 ] “1. Whether the accident in question took place on 7.3.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing Reg.No.HYC-3586 by respondent No.1 Satinder in which Maninder Singh had died, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, its effect? OPR 4. Relief.” However, on moving an application on behalf of the appellants, the following additional issues were framed vide order dated 1.11.2007 :- “3(A) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 3(B) Whether the claimant has got no locus-standi? OPR 3(c) Whether the claimant has got no cause of action? OPR” The appellants and other sons of Mange Ram were held liable to pay the compensation being the registered owners of the offending tractor. Thus, feeling aggrieved Hawa Singh and Satwinder Singh @ Satinder have preferred the instant appeal. The main stake of argument advanced by the appellants is that the registered owners of the offending tractor are Uma Shankar, Naresh Singh and Shiv Shankar son of Shri Shiv Narayan residents of village Mainmati, and the appellants are not the registered owners. No registration certificate has been brought on record. Shri Krishan Kumar (RW1), Motor FAO No.3632 of 2008(O&M) [ 3 ] Registration Clerk disclosed that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.HYC-3586 is registered in the names of Uma Shankar, etc. This witness further admitted that the vehicle once stood registered in the name of Mange Ram and the present appellants are the heirs of Mange Ram. He has not stated anywhere that Hawa Singh and others did not get the registration transferred in their names after the death of mange Ram. In any case, Hawa Singh – appellant is estopped from stating that he is not the owner of the vehicle, because the record of the criminal case reveals that it was Hawa Singh, who claiming himself to be the owner of the offending tractor, took `superdari' of the same. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karnal directing release of the offending vehicle on superdari on the condition of furnishing superdiginama in favour of the registered owner in the sum of Rs.75,000/- with one surety in the like amount, was also placed on the record as Ex.P6. In pursuance of the said order Ex.P6, Hawa Singh – appellant furnished `superdiginama' along with one surety, which was accepted and attested, and the vehicle was released on superdari in his favour. As such, the appellant Hawa Singh is estopped to blow hot and cold in the same breath. At one time, he got the offending tractor on superdari and again in a bid to get rid of the liability, he started contending that he is not the registered owner of the offending tractor. No doubt, the Motor Vehicles Act provides for fastening the liability on the registered owner, but the case of Hawa Singh – appellant is on the better footing as he admits himself to be the owner of the offending tractor, but having failed to get the ownership transferred, cannot say that he is not the registered owner. The evidence establishes that the offending tractor was owned, possessed and being used FAO No.3632 of 2008(O&M) [ 4 ] by the appellant Hawa Singh only. Now, coming to the amount of compensation, it may be noticed that the deceased was 32 years old, a perfect driver earning handsome salary, having a valid passport with VISA for Malasiya, Singapore, Thailand, etc. The evidence pertaining to income in the shape of income- tax returns, relating to the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 make it abundantly clear that the deceased was earning Rs.48,900/- per annum from his profession and in the year 2005-2006, his income from profession was increased to Rs.80,000/- per annum. Besides, the income-tax return filed by the deceased further indicates that he was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. Thus, taking all circumstances, the Tribunal was quite justified in determining the income of the deceased at Rs.75,000/- per annum and after deducting usual 1/3rd towards his own dependency, assessed the net dependency towards the claimants at Rs.50,000/- per annum and after applying the multiplier of 16 and adding Rs.10,000/- for transportation and funeral, awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs.8,10,000/-. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be exaggerated one. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly accepted, while holding that liability to pay the compensation would be upon Hawa Singh alone and none else. No order as to costs. October 05, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE