HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.: 265 of 2008 Decided on: 13.7.2009 Vinod Kumar ………Appellant. Versus Suman Devi and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate. For respondents No.1 to 3: Mr.Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.6: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.7: Ms.Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Una, dated 22.2.2008, vide which interim compensation was ordered to be paid by the present appellant and the respondent No.6. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondents No.1 to 4 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - compensation on account of the death of one Amarjit. The claimants are the wife and children of the said deceased. During the pendency of the petition, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act granting interim compensation in favour of the claimants. Vide said order, the interim compensation was payable by respondents No.2 and 3 on the basis of no fault liability. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Tribunal, respondent No.2 has filed the present appeal. The facts of the case are not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties and, therefore, the appeal is being decided without calling for the original record since the matter has already been delayed and calling for the record may further delay the matter. The main dispute is in regard to the responsibility as to whether the amount is payable by respondents No.2, 3 or 4. Admittedly, the original respondent No.4 Surender Paul (respondent No.7 before this Court) was the registered owner of the vehicle in question, who, allegedly, sold the vehicle to respondent No.3 Kaushalya Devi (respondent No.6 before this Court) and she further alleged to have sold the same to respondent No.2 Vinod Kumar, the present appellant. The responsibility has been fastened by the learned Tribunal upon respondents No.2 and 3. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant Vinod Kumar were that there is no proof on record to show that he purchased the vehicle from - 3 - respondent No.3, who has not denied that she had purchased the vehicle from the registered owner, original respondent No.4. In view of the fact there was no record before the learned Tribunal that the vehicle has been sold by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.2 Vinod Kumar, present appellant, therefore, the appellant/ respondent No.2, Vinod Kumar is not liable to pay the amount of interim compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. However, the original respondent No.3 Kaushalya Devi (respondent No.6 before this Court) is liable to deposit the full amount of interim compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal. These findings are subject to the final decision that may be taken by the learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence led before it. The appeal field by the appellant is accordingly allowed and the amount deposited by him shall be refunded to him. The amount of interim compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal shall be deposited by the present respondent No.6 Kaushalya Devi within a period of 30 days from today. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Tribunal for information and compliance. July 13, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.