IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.628 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:27/1/2009 Rattan Singh and another ..........Petitioners. Versus Ishwar Singh and another. ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Sandeep Singh,Advocate for the petitioners-registered owners of the offending Tractor. JASWANT SINGH,J This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short the Act) has been filed challenging the award dated 14.11.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short the Tribunal), whereby claim petition filed by respondent no.2-claimant-Sonu was partly allowed and he was awarded a total amount of Rs.2,34,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till realisation on account of injuries suffered by him and loss incurred on account of a motor vehicular accident caused by the offending Tractor, of which petitioners are the registered owners. The compensation amount was ordered to be paid jointly and severally by petitioners and respondent no.1-driver of the offending tractor. Alongwith this appeal, petitioners have also filed an application bearing CM No.2153-CII of 2009, under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section FAO No.628 of 2009(O&M) 2 151 CPC, for staying the impugned award of the learned Tribunal. Briefly stated, the necessary facts are that respondent no.2- claimant-Sonu filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the learned Tribunal, alleging that on 29.12.2005 at about 3.00 p.m., after taking lunch from his house he was going to his shop on a bicycle and when he reached near Shiv Dharam Kanta, Dhani Shyam Lal, then the offending tractor bearing registration no. HYH-764 alongwith a trolley attached to it and laden with sugarcane, being driven by respondent no.1-Ishwar Singh in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed, hit the claimant from behind, as a result of which he fell down and was run over by the front tyre of the said tractor. In that accident the claimant received serious and multiple injuries for which he received treatment at General Hospital, Hissar, Metro Hospital, CMC Hospital, N.C.Jindal Hospital and Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi. For the said injuries suffered by him, claimed sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs). Upon notice, respondent no.1-driver Ishwar Singh filed written statement denying the alleged involvement of the aforesaid tractor in the accident and pleaded that a false case had been registered. However, during the evidence of the claimant, respondent no.1-driver Ishwar Singh did not appear and was proceeded against exparte. Petitioners, who were impleaded as respondents 2(ii) and 2(iii) before the learned Tribunal, being registered owners of the offending Tractor, filed joint written statement asserting therein that the claim petition was not maintainable against them as they had already sold the offending Tractor to FAO No.628 of 2009(O&M) 3 respondent no.1-Ishwar Singh before the date of accident on 29.12.2005 for which affidavits were also executed in that regard and as such they had no concern with the offending tractor, after its sale. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.HYH-764 by respondent no.1?OPP. 2. If issue no.1 proved to what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioner is entitled to? OPP. 3. Relief.” On the basis of the evidence led by the parties and after hearing their respective counsel, learned Tribunal passed the impugned award, as stated above. As stated hereinabove, this appeal has been filed by respondents 2 (ii) and 2(iii), in the claim petition, who had contested the claim petition before the learned Tribunal as registered owners of the offending Tractor. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned award. The learned counsel has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the petitioners, much prior to the accident, had already sold the tractor to respondent no.1 for which even affidavits were also executed and as such learned Tribunal fell in error by ignoring the cogent and credible evidence available on record to establish the fact that the petitioners had FAO No.628 of 2009(O&M) 4 already sold the tractor before the date of accident. I find no merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned Tribunal in para graphs 13 and 14 of the impugned award, while fastening the liability upon the petitioners and respondent no.1, has threadbare discussed the evidence adduced by both sides. Petitioner no.1-Rattan Singh, appeared as RW-1 and stated that they had sold the tractor to one Rajpal of Dhani Kumharan and writing work was also completed which however, got misplaced. It was further deposed by him that they had handed over the possession of the offending tractor to said Rajpal, who further sold the said tractor to Ishwar-respondent no.1-who was driving the offending tractor at the time of accident. He further stated that said Ishwar Singh had even filed a civil suit, which, however, he got dismissed as withdrawn. To absolve himself of the responsibility to pay the compensation, respondent no.1-Ishwar Singh, driver of the offending tractor appeared in the witness box as RW2 and stated that he never purchased the offending tractor and in fact he had filed the suit at the instance of petitioner no.1-Rattan Singh through one Narender Singh Saini, Advocate, who was engaged by none else than petitioner no.1-Rattan Singh . On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, it was found by the learned Tribunal in para 14 of the impugned award that “....onus was upon the registered owners to prove that they have sold it to respondent no.1...... No FAO No.628 of 2009(O&M) 5 document whatsoever has been produced in this behalf. Thus, mere admission of Ishwar Singh in a suit filed in a Civil Court and that too after the present accident, would not be of any consequence not to hold respondents no.2(ii) and 2(iii) liable for payment....” Thus, in view of the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence led by the parties, no fault can be found with the impugned award. No other point has been raised. Accordingly, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 27.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge