HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.946 AND 960 OF 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment in M.V.O.P. Nos.382 of 1991 and 588 of 1991 dated 05-10-1994, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the M.V.O.Ps. are filed by the claimants seeking compensation and additional compensation respectively as the deceased, who is husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3, died in the accident. 3. C.M.A. No.946 of 2010 is filed by the claimants contending that all the respondents are liable for payment of compensation and C.M.A. No.960 of 2010 is filed by Masthan Saheb, who is respondent No.3 in both the M.V.O.Ps., contending that the compensation awarded is excessive and that respondent No.4 is also liable for payment of compensation being owner of the motorcycle involved in the accident. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they arrayed in the M.V.O.Ps. before the Tribunal. 5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) On 25-11-1990 at about 5-00 PM, while the deceased Medathati Yesanna, a watchman in a Social Welfare Hostel, was going on a cycle, he was hit by the motorcycle bearing No.ADD 1599, on account of that he sustained injuries and subsequently died at Kurnool Hospital while undergoing treatment. At the time of accident, the deceased was 40 years old drawing a salary of Rs.1,266/- per month. The claimants, who are legal heirs of the deceased, claimed compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-. The motorcycle was not insured with any Insurance Company, as such, owners of the motorcycle are arrayed as respondents. (b) According to respondent No.1, he was owner of the motorcycle, but he sold the same to respondent No.2 on 02-06-1990 and handedover the same to him and he (R-2) executed a letter in Ex.R-2 in that connection. (c) Respondent No.2 filed his counter contending that he purchased the motorcycle from respondent No.1 on 02-06-1990 but within four days thereafter he sold the same to respondent No.3 and handedover it to him along with R.C. book and other documents. (d) Respondent No.3 filed his counter contending that he is not the owner of the motorcycle. He contends that he purchased the motorcycle from respondent No.2 two months prior to 20-09-1990, but he sold the same to respondent No.4 and his close relation Pradeep Kumar on 20-09-1990 and Pradeep Kumar gave a letter of undertaking stating that he purchased the motorcycle for Rs.13,750/- and he would be responsible for any cases in connection with it and as the registration certificate is in the name of respondent No.1 at the time of accident, respondent Nos.1 and 2 alone are liable for payment of compensation. (e) Respondent No.4 filed his counter contending that he is not proper party to the claim as he is not the owner of the vehicle at any point of time. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed by the Tribunal: (a) In O.P. No.382 of 1991: 1. Whether the death of the deceased Medathati Yesanna was due to the motor accident caused by Motor Cycle ADD 1599 on 25.11.1990 ? 2. Whether the petitioners (claimants) are entitled to the compensation claimed, if so against whom ? (b) In O.P. No.588 of 1991: 1. Whether the death of the deceased Medathati Yesanna was due to the injuries received in the motor accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle ADD 1599 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and against whom ? 7. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. 8. Based on the material on record, the learned trial Judge granted compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- in M.V.O.P. No.588 of 1991 and Rs.25,000/- in M.V.O.P. No.382 of 1991, totalling to Rs.1,45,000/- to the claimants. With regard to liability, the learned trial Judge held that respondent No.3 alone is liable for payment of compensation and respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 are not liable. 9. C.M.A. No.946 of 2010 is filed by the claimants contending that respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 are also liable for payment of compensation. C.M.A. No.960 of 2010 is filed by respondent No.3 in C.M.A. No.946 of 2010 contending that respondent No.4 is also liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. 10. Heard Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, and perused the material on record. 11. The quantum of compensation etc., awarded by the Tribunal are not in serious dispute and as already referred there is no dispute that whatever amounts payable are only by the owner of the vehicle. 12. Now, the only question that arises for consideration is whether other than respondent No.3, any other respondent is liable for payment of compensation. 13. As seen from the judgment of the Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed a counter contending that he sold the motorcycle on 02-06-1990 to respondent No.2 i.e. about five months prior to the accident, which took place on 25-11-1990. Respondent No.2 in his counter stated that he purchased the motor cycle on 02-06-1990 and within four days thereafter he sold it to respondent No.3 and at the time of accident respondent No.3 was in possession of the same. Respondent No.3 filed a counter contending that he is not the owner of the motorcycle on 25-11-1990 though he purchased the same from respondent No.2 two months prior to 20-09-1990, he sold the same to respondent No.4 and his close relative Pradeep Kumar on 20-09- 1990. Respondent No.4 filed a counter contending that he is not the owner of the vehicle at any point of time. 14. Thus, respondent No.1 is not liable for payment of compensation as respondent No.2 admitted in his counter that he purchased the motorcycle from respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is also not liable as respondent No.3 filed counter contending that he (R- 3) is not the owner of the motorcycle though he purchased the same from respondent No.2 two months prior to 20-09-1990, he sold it to respondent No.4 and his close relative Pradeep Kumar on 20-09-1990 and respondent No.4 filed a counter denying that he is the owner of the motorcycle. Thus, respondent No.3 admitted that he purchased the motorcycle from respondent No.2 and he sold it to respondent No.4 and Pradeep Kumar. Respondent No.4 and Pradeep Kumar denied the sale in their favour, as such, burden lies on respondent No.3 to prove that he sold the motorcycle to respondent No.4 and Pradeep Kumar. 15. Further, respondent No.3 in his evidence admitted that he purchased the motorcycle from respondent No.2. Respondent No.4, as already referred in his counter, denied that he purchased the motorcycle from respondent No.3. In the circumstances, respondent No.3 wanted to rely on Ex.B-3 saying that he sold the motorcycle to respondent No.4. In Ex.B-3, there is recital to show that respondent No.3 sold the motorcycle to respondent No.4. Ex.B-3 shows that it is executed by one “Prathap” saying that he purchased the motorcycle from respondent No.3. But, signature on this document is of one “Pradeep Kumar”. Respondent No.3 as RW.3 deposed that he sold the motorcycle to “Pradeep Kumar” under Ex.B-3, respondent No.4 is a close relation to Pradeep Kumar. In Ex.B-3, Pradeep Kumar stated that from the date of document respondent No.3 is not responsible for any damages. In his cross-examination, RW.3 admitted that he purchased the motorcycle from respondent No.2 after filling up the forms and respondent No.2 gave it to him to get the registration and transfer in his (R-3) name. He denies the suggestion that he did not sell the motorcycle to Pradeep Kumar and that he manipulated Ex.B-3. He admitted that he did not sell the motorcycle to respondent No.4. Thus, the evidence of respondent No.3 as RW.3 shows that he did not sell the motorcycle to respondent No.4 and his case is that he sold the motorcycle to one Pradeep Kumar. This Pradeep Kumar is not a party to the M.V.O.Ps. and as already referred respondent No.3 as RW.3 has admitted that he purchased the motorcycle from respondent No.2. 16. In the circumstances, other than respondent No.3, no one else can be said to be liable, as he admitted that he purchased the motorcycle from respondent No.2 and clearly stated that he did not sell the same to respondent No.4 and his claim is that he sold it to Pradeep Kumar and that Pradeep Kumar is not a party in any of the M.V.O.P. and as per the body of Ex.B-3 document, it is executed by one “Pratap” and signature is of “T. Pradeep Kumar”, as such, no weight can be given to this document. 17. In all these circumstances, as already referred, respondent No.3 alone is liable for payment of compensation to the claimants and no other respondents. In view of this finding, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed and the judgment of the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. Nos.382 of 1991 and 588 of 1991 dated 05-10-1994 is confirmed. No order as to costs. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 14, 2010. PV