F.A.O.No.538 of 1996. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. F.A.O.No.538 of 1996. Date of decision:20-2-2008 Surender Singh. ...Appellant. Versus Smt. Krishna and others. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. B. S. Walia Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anil Shukla Advocate for respondent No.8. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. Krishna and others filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of death of Bhag Chand, in a motor accident. The brief facts are that on 18.2.1992 at about 10.30 AM, Ram Kishan, brother of the deceased was going on a bicycle from Dhani Garan towards Barwala for purchasing household goods. Bhag Chand, deceased was a pillion rider. When they were just one F.A.O.No.538 of 1996. -2- Kilometre short of Barwala, motor cycle bearing registration No.HYM 6545 driven by Chander Parkash, respondent No.1 came from behind and struck against their bicycle. As a result of same, both of them fell down resulting in injuries on their persons. Bhag Chand succumbed to the injuries on the same evening at about 6.15 PM in Civil Hospital at Barwala. The accident was witnessed by one Amar Singh. It is alleged that the deceased was 35 years old. He was working as a mason as well as milk vendor and his monthly income was Rs.4,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 filed written statement bearing his own signatures and that of his father as his natural guardian claiming himself to be a minor. He raised preliminary objection that he had not been properly impleaded through the next friend or the natural guardian and, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed. On merits, he denied his involvement in the accident in question. Surender Singh, respondent No.2 filed a separate written statement claiming that he was the owner of the motor cycle in question bearing registration No.HYM 6545 only up to 19.10.1989 on which date he had sold the same to one Raj Kumar son of Ganesh Dass, respondent No.3 and had given his affidavit to that effect to the said purchaser and, therefore, he was not liable for any compensation. Raj Kumar, respondent No.3 also filed a separate written statement denying that he had ever purchased the motor cycle in F.A.O.No.538 of 1996. -3- question from above named Surender Singh, respondent and, thus, claimed that he was not liable for payment of any compensation. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1.Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Rajdoot motor cycle No.HYM 6545 by Chander Parkash, respondent No.1 ?OPP. 2.If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom?OPP. 3.Relief. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and against respondent No.1. Under issue No.2, the annual dependency of the claimants upon the deceased was held at Rs.14,400/- and by applying a multiplier of 16, total amount of Rs.2,30,400/- was awarded as compensation. Respondent Nos.1and 2 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensation. Under issue No.3, the claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.2,30,400/- vide award dated 3.11.1995. The claimants were also held entitled to interest @12% per annum from the date of petition till actual realization payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Surender Singh, appellant feeling aggrieved against the above-said award, has preferred the present appeal. F.A.O.No.538 of 1996. -4- I have heard arguments of counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Counsel for Surender Singh appellant has submitted that the vehicle in question was sold to Raj Kumar, respondent on 19.10.1989. The accident has taken place on 18.2.1992. RW2 Deva Singh Garewal, Advocate has proved the photostat copy of affidavit Exhibit R1. From the perusal of Exhibit R1, it can be safely inferred that the vehicle in question was sold by the appellant on 19.10.1989 and as such no liability of the appellant could be fastened regarding the accident in question. The motor-cycle in question has not met with an accident. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same. Raj Kumar appeared as RW3 and he categorically stated that he was a rickshaw puller and he never purchased the motor cycle in question. The document, Exhibit R1, does not help of the case of the appellant. The original of Exhibit R-1 has not been placed on the file. According to this document, Surender Singh has sold motor cycle bearing registration No.HYM-6545 in favour of Raj Kumar but there is no evidence that Raj Kumar had actually become the owner of the said motor cycle. Admittedly, in the registration record, the appellant has been recorded as owner. No transfer entry has been made in favour of Raj Kumar. No document has been placed on the file from which it F.A.O.No.538 of 1996. -5- could be concluded that motor cycle in question was actually sold to Raj Kumar. Simple production of photostat copy of affidavit of Surender Singh appellant is not sufficient to discharge the onus that Raj Kumar had become owner of motor cycle No.HYM-6545. First Information Report has been registered against Chander Parkash. The other evidence on the file proves the fact that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by Chander Parkash. There was no reason for the appellant to falsely implicate Chander Parkash, respondent and to allow the actual culprit go scot free. So, in view of the above discussion, no ground for interference in the findings of the learned Tribunal is made out and consequently finding on all the issues returned by the learned Tribunal stand affirmed. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. February 20,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge