m \ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR iSiii^g.g sst. A. (C)N0. •2 '^a / 2008 Appeilani {S^^<v —^ntO/U<—&^^" r~ts <L ^Respondents t-^S.i.i—A^^;; c_a,^'-. Nw.2_ (^^-Vl. - A-P^-i C-QA^JC' C^O-£, >I. 2 Yusuf Shekh S/o Mohd. Sataar, Aged about 38 years, R/o Village Marwahi, Thasil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Dashoda, Aged about 45 years, Wd/o Gulab Singh, Sumitra, Aged about 27 years, D/o Gulab Singh, Bofh are Gond Caste, Both are R/o Village Khachhar, Tahsil SE P.S. Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Dular Singh, S/o Sundar Lal Aged about 28 years, Cast. Pav, R/o Village Katra Tahsil - Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur (^b-n <~<-^) (C.G.) Reva Lal, S/o Budhlal, Aged about 38 years, Caste - Gond, R/o Village Tendumuda, Tahsil - Marwahi , Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) (^{^t-^.^i T HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)No. 369 of 2008 Yusuf Shekh Vs. Balram @ Bhagram & Others & Other connected matters Post for pronouncement oforders on 3 /11/2009. Sd/- N.K. Agrawa! Judge 1 •v-f x '>., HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)No. 369 of 2008 'X'^T Appellant Defendant/Non- applicant No. 1 Respondents Plaintiff Non-apDlicant No.2 Non-applicant No.3 Yusuf Shekh S/o Mohd. Sataar, Aged about 38 years, R/o Village Marwahi, Tehsil & Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1. Balram @ Bhagram Aged about 45 years, S/o Heera Shankar 2. Baiskhiya, Aged about 40 years, W/o Balram Both are Gond Caste, both are R/o Village Khachhar, Tehsil & PS Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) (Plaintiff). 3. Dular Singh, S/o Sundar Lal, aged about 28 years, Caste, Pav, R/o Village Katra, Tehsil-Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) (Driver)-Non- applicant No. 2. 4. Reva Lal, S/o Budhlat, aged about 38 years, Caste-Gond, Tehsil Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) (Owner) Memorandum of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act & MAC Nos. 370/08, 371/08, 379/08, 380/08 and 381/08 fSingle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advoeate for appellant. Shri Rakesh Thakurwith ShriShashi Bhushan, Advocate for claimants. Shri Ankit Singha, Advocate for respondent-Revalal. None appears for respondent-Driver Dular Singh, though served. ^-•y <, ORDER (Passed on 3, day of November, 2009) MA (C) Nos. 369/08, 370/08, 371/08, 379/08, 380/08 and 381/08 are being disposedof by this common order as all these appeals arise out of the same accident and involves common question of law. These are owner's appeal against the award dated 30-1-2008 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 36/2006, 23/2006, 25/2006, 37/2006, 38/2006, 24/2006, whereby and whereunder, different amount has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants against the appellant and respondent Dular Singh holding them liable. In M.A.C Nos. 369/2008 and 379/2008, theclaimants have also filed cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. praying enhancement. Brief facts of the case, as per the claimants, are that on 5-3- 2004 claimants and other persons were traveling in motor vehicle bearing registration No. CG 10 ZB/1809, driven by respondent Dular Singh and owned by the appellant. Near village Matiadad, the driver of the vehicle driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the vehicle with a Parsa tree, as a result of which, two persons namely Patiram and Gulab Singh died and some persons received serious injuries. The injured persons and legal representatives of the deceased persons filed applications under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, clairqing compensations on account of the injury sustained and death occurred. Y ^ 9. Per contra, Shri Rakesh Thakur and Shri Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the claimants supported the award and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the appellant which is based on evidence led by the parties and material placed on record, and no fault can be found in it. They would further submit that in MAC Nos. 369/2008 and 379/2008, cross objection have been preferred by the claimants which deserves to be allowed as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in these appeals is shockingly on lower side. 10. Shri Ankit Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Revalal supported the finding recorded by the Tribunal and submitted that award deserves to be upheld. 11. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record and order impugned. 12. The question for consideration in these appeals is whether the appellant was registered owner/owner of the vehicle in question at the time of accident or he only acted as an agent (broker) between Suresh Kenwat and Revalal and therefore, not liable for payment of compensation. 13, In the written statement filed by the appellant, it has been specifically pleaded in para 5 and 11 that the appellant sold the vehicle to respondent No. 3 before the date of accident and also banded over its possession to respondent No. 3 and due to this reason the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the .claimants. This plea taken by the appellant was not : substantiated by him by adducing cogent evidence or by placing >^< •-?. X \: material on record. In the evidence, a totally different and contrary stand has been taken by the appellant that he was never owner/registered owner of the vehicle. 14. The claimant examined the RTO person Smt. Geeta Thakur who deposed that as per the register maintained in the RTO office, on the date of accident, the appellant's name was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Exhibit P/6 computer record of the registration of vehicle, Exhibit P/7 photocopy of register of the vehicle with regard to their registration maintained in the RTO office and Exhibit P/9, copy of registration book would also reveal that on the date of accident vehicle stands registered in the name of appellant. Smt. Geeta Thakur also duly explained the documents placed on record by the appellant. Moreover, the evidence adduced by the appellant runs contrary to his own pleadings. He categorically admitted in his pleading that he was the owner of the vehicle before the date of aucident and he is the person who sold the vehicle to respondent No. 3, but in evidence, he has stated that he was never owner/registered owner of the vehicle. 15. It is trite law that evidence contrary to pleading would have no bearing. It is also settled view of the law that admission if not explained properly js best piece of evidence. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that on the date of accident the appellant was not owner/registered owner of the vehicte. Even otherwise, it has also not been proved by the appellant by producing documentary evidence or cogent oral evidence that infact the vehicle was sold by him to respondent No. 3. 1^1 E'H" 16. In view of the above, the Tribunal has rightly passed the awards against the appellant holding him owner of the vehicle which is based on appreciation of evidence. In view of the above, In the considered opinion of this court, the finding with regard to ownership ofthe vehicle recorded bythe Tribunal is based on appreciation ofevidence and deserves to be upheld. 17. No other points have been raised by the appellant. 18. I have also gone carefully through the amount awarded by the Tribunal in Claim Case No. 36/2006 (M.A.C No. 369/2008) and Claim Case No. 37/2006 (MAC No. 379/2008). The amount awarded by the Tribunal in both the cases is based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be inadequate and does not call interference. 19. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant in the aforesaid cases are liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The cross objections filed by the claimants in M.A.C Nos. 369/2008 & 379/2008 are also liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. 20. A copy of this order be placed on other connected matters. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu