XI-HC—78 3-s^ ^i^ii^, ^TTi^li^, fi^iyy svsy ^si h-uvi ^^FT 3H^?T"gP^ g^IIWBf^i 3IRW HI6H COURT OF CHH, i.A. APPELLANTS •WIRNNt[reif 'i[,fsIA tfSnsn q; affg-q 311^1 THS6ARH AT BILASPUR 866 of 2004 Vs RESPONDENTS 1.1 Kheiurom, S/o Pran Singh, Aged about 27 years, R/o Village and Post Nar-ra, P.S. Scgbohara, Distt. Mahasamund (C.6.). 2. | Pilendra Kumar' Sahu, S/o Dayaram Sahu, Aged about 40 years, R/o Villa9e Kodopali, Post Bhurkoni, P.5. Pithora, t>istt. Mahasamund 1 (C.6.) 1. t(amal Prasad, S/o Devi Sin9h, 49®d about 50 years, Caste Fjade, Occupation-Teacher, R/o \(illage Bindrawan, Post Narra, .5. Ba9bahcr'a, Distt A|Sahasamund (C.G.) 2. Tfhe Neuv India Insurance Co. l^td., Through Branch Manager, E|hawani Patna (Orissa) Mr". Manoj Pararype, Adv. with AAr. V. None for the respondents, though th^y O R A L (1.5 Per Dhirendra Mishro, J ^overdhan, Adv. for the appellants. are served. OR & 1.2007) —4.oT Heard. | The owner & driver of the i^otorcycle bearin9 registration number JMP23 YA 9038 have prefen-ed this hppeal under Seetian 173. o.f the-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter shail be referred as 'the Act') again?t the XI-HC—78 3^^ ^tl^l^AI, ^Tfl^'!^, (slc-iK-iy z'u sn^s ?ii Wi* 'SSTT sn^r ^*i!°ti i^ITWgf?!! 3fl^I '*!<lid41-l TWRtf tf^fS^ <lai*SK q? siRrti aii^i Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter| award dated 31.3.2304 passed b-j; Tribunal, Mohasamund in Claim Ca4 awarded a sum of Rs.90,80)/- sustained by him in the accident| driving the swd vehicle rashly and shall be refer'red as 'the Act') against the ' the 2 Additional Motor Accident Claims ;e No.36/2003 whereby learned tribuna! has to respondent No.l towards the injuries dated 27.5.2002 while appellant No.l wce negligentiy. The appellants have prefeij' there is evidence available on recdi owner of the motor cyc!e in ques'l Manohar 6ond, who in turn transf^ above fact. The subsequent purcl^ absence the claim petition couid raised by the appellants is that th which ar'e on the face of it false ai Placin9 reliance on the judi red this appeci firstiy on the ground that rd to show that appellant No.2 was not the •ion, as the sarne stood transferred to one rred it to one Puran. However, the tribunsl has fastened the iiability upon t|ie appellant No.2 without considering the asers namely Manohar (5ond <& Puran were necessary parties for proper adj4dication of the claim petition and in their not be adjudicated. The second ground ^ claimant has r-eiied upon for the purposes of his claim on the documents bei^ig receipts towar-ds purchase of medicines, d fabricated. iment of M.P. High Court in the matter of Sanjay Si?gh Thakur Vs. Suttf^n Ahmad and o'rtiers reported in 1996 tt.P.L.J. 83, it has been argued •fhat where the tr-ansfer of motor cycle on payment of price and delivery of recordin9 of name in registration possession to purchaser" sale is complete, lcer'tificate is immaterial. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hi9h C^urt of Himachal Pradedi at Shimla in the mntter of Notional Insur'ance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bimia Devi and others reported m-£00d ACJ 402 udd il huy bwn dryuffd-That decuTnerffs'whicH are no'fpubiic o 3rcT ^(|i<|^, (SiTTl^'l'i, (s|<l''wy rl°) O] SIltff ^iT Kiliqi ^TT STT^I »)^)cft •s^nwafs^ 3ii^i +i«lt<n-'i1-f'RTCff 'Q.1St^ tfsR^R T siiOT 3nt?i documents cannot be brought in evji them unless they are proved. I have heard learned counsel So far as the first ground concerned, there is no dispute tha-( the vehicle, there is also no dispu^ dence nor can any reliance be ploced upon for the appelisnts. taken by the appeilants in this appeai is appellant No.2 is the re9istered owner of e that the appeliant No.l wos drivin9 the said vehicle at the relevant time i^vi accordingly they have been arrayed as non-appliconts No.l & 2 be'mg drivei| basis of the pteadings of respecti^ and white dealing with Issue No.l 'i.i the motorcycle, driven by non-appli< & owner of the vehicle in question. On the e parties, the tribunai has framed issues ;. whether on 27.5.2002 at about 7.00 p.m. i^ant No.2 and owned by non-applicant No.l, was beiry dr-iven rashiy & negli9efl|tly and dashed a9Qinst Kamal Prasad, has held that though non-applicant No 2 has exomined Sunhar as AW-2, who is brother of Manohar ©ondand Sunhar has stated that his brothei* AAcnohar purchased the motorcycle fi^om Piiendra i.e. non-opplicant No.2 and thereafter he sold the same to onei Puran after 2-3 months. He hos further stated that he is not aware as to present and he is also not awore o ^vho is in possession of the motorcycie at |f whereabouts of AAanohar, as he has not returned since last two years. He l^as not stated as to on what consideration the vehicie has been purchased by| his brother. He has also stated that he snter-ed into witness box at the req(ie3t of appellant No.2 herein. Thus, on the basis of the statement of AW-2, the tribunal has held that the registered owner of the vfehicle has faited to prove that the vehicle was in fact^ transferred to Manoh^r" Gond by him, as no document has been produced by the appellant No.2 regardin9 transfer of motorcycle in favour of XI-HC—78 3^r •*fww<-i, •S'^WIQ, Rrtiyy n>» 3ii^[ ^il ft-flqi flsn sn^i sh^!cti IT^IWHftaSII^I fc ^1^'^ 'RF^ '^,'f^Tst '^F^R ^i'3lRiIT STf^I said Manohar. Even the purchas^r has not been examined and brother of purchaser, who has been examine(| as AW-2, is not aware of the transoction, as is evident from his deposition. Moreover, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant relates ^t-o a dispute where liability of poyment of interim award was under conside|'ation and consider'ing that there being a dispute regarding ownership of v^hicle, the 1-ligh Court has held that the tribunal should hove at this junctjire directed the registered owner and the transferee both to be answerable to meet the interim award and accordingiy, it was held that the reysiered owjier and the transferee both shall be jointiy and severaily liable to pcy the ai^iount of interim award. Horeever, in the present case the appeiiant No.2 |ias fai!ed to establish by ieading oral or documentary evidence that the njotorcycie involved in the accident was in fact, transferred by him to Manifihar- ©ond,as olleged, and therefore, the tribunai has ri9htly heid that the ^ippellant No.2 is jointly and severally iiable to satisfy the compensation clor^ ujiith the driver i.e. appeilant No.l herein. So far <as the second groi|nd taken by the appellants that award is based on the documents which ar^ on the face of it concocted documents is concerned, to establish this grot^nd learned counsel for the appelliint has referred to the documents &<.P-l6, 17, 20, 23 & 26 and submitted thatcash memo numbers and dates of issua|ice of these cash memos go to show that the documents were subsequently^ procured by the claimant just to obtain hefty compensation, as the numb^r of bills and dates 90 to show that the same could not have been issued onjthe dates on which they are shown to have been issued. Further submission i^ that the bills ought to have been proved :-I-HC—78 g^i-^pno^, ®xfly'is,isi<7>iyy -^>\ iTTOT '3? h-U^ II'-iT 3I^T *lfi* ^RiW:Bi^i aiit^r +l<<tl't41-l V^ i^Jwft ^fsRZR '^'sffiTqsn^i by the claimant since they ore ^iot public documents and therefore, no credence could be given to those doj:uments by the tribunai. From the oral and docui^entary evidence available on record, pQrticularly from the X-roy films 4"d reports given by the Radiologist, it is established that the claimant suffe^ed fractures on his thigh, elbow and clso serious injury on the skull. The cl^iim pr-oceedin9S are summary proceedings and for the purposes of establishint^ the expenditure incurred by the claimant in his treatment, medical biils receijits may be proved by the ciaimant, as has been proved in this case, and he is fiot requir'ed to summon the Chemist, who has so!d the medicines through th^ receipts to the claimant. Moreover, no objection was raised by the appellai^ts in this regapd before the tribunal and there was no pleading by the appell4nts that the bills were in fact fabricated bills procured just to obtain compen^ation. In view of the above, I am oflthe considered opinion that the impugned oward passed by the tribunal is bas^d on the documentary and oral evidence available on record and there is no ^ibstance in this appeal, the same is iiable to be dismissed and accordingly, it i^ her-eby dismissed. — — — —