THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.3943 of 2009 Dated:- 22nd December, 2010 Between:- Ganesh Pullaparthi …Appellant AND Smt.C.Lalitha and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.3943 of 2009 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the decree and order dated 09.03.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1620 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity). 2. The parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The first claimant is the wife of deceased C.Narsing Rao and claimants 2 to 4 are her children. The deceased died in a motor accident occurred on 05.08.2006 near Jawahar Nagar road, Hyderabad. The claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) against the first respondent who is shown as the owner of the crime vehicle bearing registration No.AP 11 C 1186 and the second respondent who is shown as the rider of the vehicle. The stand taken by the first respondent before the Tribunal was that he sold away the vehicle to one K.Krishna Kumar in the year 2002 and that he is not the owner of the vehicle as on the date of the accident. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, the third claimant – C.Sai Kumar was examined as P.W.1, one A.Chandra Mohan was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the first respondent – P.Ganesh was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. 5. The Tribunal, having considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, framed the following issues for adjudication:- i) Whether Sri C.Narsing Rao died on 10.08.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.AP 11 C 1186, on 05.08.2006; ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If so against whom; iii) To what relief; 6. The Tribunal, holding that the petitioners are entitled for compensation and that both the first and the second respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, partly allowed the petition with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent therein is before this Court as appellant. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have whispered about Exs.B.1 to B.4 and also the evidence of R.W.1 in the impugned order. It is also his submission that when certain oral and documentary evidence has been adduced, the Tribunal ought to have discussed about the same. Learned counsel further submits that in support of his contentions before the Tribunal, he has filed written arguments and cited judgment in case between Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Vs. Kailash Nath Kothari[1]. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that this Court, by order dated 25.01.2010, directed the appellant/first respondent to deposit 50% of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal with interest thereon and costs within a period of six weeks, after giving credit to the amount already deposited, if any, and on such deposit, the claimants were directed to withdraw the same without furnishing any security and that the appellant has not complied with the said order of this Court, till date. Learned counsel further submits that the legal position is well settled by virtue of the judgment of the Apex Court, in case between Dr.T.V.Jose Vs. Chacko P.M. and others[2], wherein, it was observed that “the transferor still continued to be liable to the third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as owner”. 9. Heard both the learned counsel. 10. Admittedly, no issue was framed by the Tribunal as to whether R.W.1 / appellant herein is the owner of the crime vehicle or not. It appears that the first respondent has also not taken any steps to reframe the issues and as such, there was no issue before the Tribunal as to who is the owner of the crime vehicle as on the date of the accident. However, the fact remains that the first respondent was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 – Delivery Note, Ex.B.2 – Copy of Form No.29, Ex.B.3 – Copy of Form No.30 and Ex.B.4 – Letter to addressed to RTO, Asmangadh, Hyderabad were marked. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, observed as follows:- “Admittedly, the first respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle and the second respondent is the rider. Though R.W.1 stated that he sold away the vehicle, he is not able to establish that he transferred the vehicle in favour of the alleged purchaser. It is well settled that the owner of the vehicle is a person in whose name registration stands. I, therefore, hold that both respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation.” 11. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. Since it appears that the Tribunal has not whispered anything about Exs.B.1 to B.4 and the evidence of R.W.1 in the impugned order and also in view of the non- compliance of the interim order passed by this Court on 25.01.2010 by the appellant/first respondent, I am inclined to pass order as follows:- 12. On condition of the appellant depositing 50% of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal with accrued interest thereon before the Tribunal within a period of sixty (60) days from today, the appeal stands allowed and the impugned order stands set aside. It is made clear that on such deposit of compensation amount by the appellant, the claimants/respondents are permitted to withdraw the amount without furnishing any security, proportionate to their shares, as ordered by the Tribunal. 13. On compliance of the above condition, the matter stands remanded back to the Tribunal for passing appropriate orders after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties and framing necessary issues. 14. The M.A.C.M.A. is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 22nd December, 2010 Bvv [1] 1997 (7) SCC 481 [2] 2001 ACJ 2067