FAO No. 5900 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5900 of 2011 Date of decision: 15.9.2011 Chaman Lal ...Appellant v Usha and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the appellant. ... JITENDRA CHAUHA,J.(Oral) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Award dated 16.7.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short the Tribunal). Brief facts of the case are that on 6.10.2003, Vikram -deceased alongwith Chaman Lal and Satish Kumar were going to Pipli on a motor-cycle bearing registration No. HR-05G-5618 (offending vehicle). The said vehicle was driven by Chaman Lal in a rash and negligent manner. All of sudden it hit against one person Surat Singh and over-turned. The occupants of the motor cycle fell down. Vikram sustained grievous injuries and died. A case under section 279, 337, 304-A IPC was registered against Chaman Lal. Baljeet Singh, father of deceased suspecting it to be a case of murder of his son, filed complaint No. 311 of 2004 under sections 302, 506 IPC against Chaman Lal and Satish Kumar. They were acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated 25.5.2009 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Kurushetra by giving them the benefit of doubt. After the acquittal of FAO No. 5900 of 2011 2 the accused, the claimants i.e wife and son, filed claim petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was stated that Vikram was a labourer and earning Rs. 3300/- per month and he was 24 years old at the time of the accident. Upon notice, respondent No.1-Chaman Lal denied the allegations. He pleaded that neither he was the owner nor the driver of the said vehicle. Respondent No.2, owner of the offending vehicle stated that he had sold the offending vehicle to Chaman Lal, respondent No.1 in August,2003 and all the relevant documents were handed over to him. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident resulting in to death of Vikram that took place on 6.10.2003 was because of involvement of motorcycle No. HR-05G-5618, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to receive compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the motorcycle in question was being driven by a person not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident, if so, its effect? OPR 4. Relief.” The Ld. Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs, 4,55,800/- to the claimants. The relevant para Nos.17,18,19,20,28 and 29 of the Award are reproduced hereunder:- FAO No. 5900 of 2011 3 17. Respondent No.2 Chaman Lal appeared as RW2 and tendered in to evidence his affidavit Ex.RW2/A, in which he stated he was neither owner of the the motorcycle nor the driver of the same and that he had been acquitted in both the cases against him. In the cross-examination, the respondent No.1 admitted that he had admitted before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra that it was a case of road side accident and not a murder and it was correct that he had purchased the vehicle in question on affidavit from respondent No.2. 18. The learned counsel for the claimants urged that from the evidence of the claimants i.e. FIR Ex.P1, final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.P2 and the observation in the judgment Ex.R9, it was proved that the accident arose out of use of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05G-5618 and Vikram died out of use of the said motorcycle. 19. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents contended that there was no witness examined by the claimants who could prove that the accident had taken place out of use of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05G-5618. 20. In the present case, the respondent No. 1 had not only admitted the accident as alleged by the claimants in his bail application Ex. P6 but also while appearing as RW2 in the cross- examination. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held in Lakhu Singh v. Uday Singh 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 805 that facts of registration of FIR and trial of the accused in a criminal FAO No. 5900 of 2011 4 case, are sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the accident had taken place. 28. The question for determination now is as to who is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The respondent No.1 had pleaded and deposed that he was neither the owner nor the driver of the motorcycle in question and the respondent No.2 has pleaded and deposed that he had sold the motorcycle in question to the respondent No.1 in August 2003. Respondent No.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he was the owner of the vehicle in question on the alleged date of accident by way of affidavit dated 12.9.2003. Copy of affidavit is mark R1 on record. No doubt that the registration certificate might not have been entered in the name respondent No.1 after purchase by respondent No.1, but respondent No.1 has admitted that he had purchased the motorcycle from respondent No.2 in September, 2003 and this accident had taken place thereafter on 6.10.2003. Therefore, the respondent No.1, alone is liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Amar Chand and others 2005 ACJ 1233 and J.S. Choudhary Proprietor of Ambala Finlease Corp. v. Ritu Devi and Others 2011 (2) P.L.R. 397. In Ritu Devi's case (supra) Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the transfer of title in a motor vehicle takes place by delivery and by passing of consideration for sale and where subsequent purchaser was also an admitted fact, therefore, the award was FAO No. 5900 of 2011 5 to be passed only against the subsequent purchaser. 29. In view of these authorities and the admission of respondent No.1, only respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants.” Impugning the findings of the Ld. Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellant-Chaman Lal submitted that the findings are without basis and recorded on surmises and conjectures. There is no evidence on record that motorcycle No. HR-05G-5618 was involved in the accident and Vikram had died out of the use of it. It is further submitted that the appellant was not properly cross-examined as the bail application was not put to him. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record of Ld.Tribunal. A perusal of the record shows that on 2.2.2011, Chaman Lal appeared as RW2 before the Ld. Tribunal and his statement was recorded, which is as under:- “Stated that I do hereby tender into evidence my duly sworn affidavit Ex.RW2/A and same be read as part of my statement. Xxxx by Shri Rakesh Arora, Advocate for claimant:- It is correct that FIR was registered against me as a driver and I have faced the trial in that case before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. It is correct that I admitted before learned ASJ,Kurukshetra that it was a case of road side accident and not a murder. It is correct that I had purchased the vehicle in question on affidavit from Dharambir, respondent No.2. It is incorrect to suggest that deceased Vikram FAO No. 5900 of 2011 6 accompanied me on the day of the accident. Volunteered that he himself took the vehicle. I do not remember that I moved an application to the higher authorities regarding the registration of false case against me. I have no record of any such application. It is incorrect to suggest that the claimants are legal heirs/LRs of the deceased Vikram. It is incorrect to suggest that I have sworn a false affidavit. xxxx by Shri A.R.Singh,Advocate for respondent No.2. It is correct that I was the owner of the vehicle in question on the alleged day of accident by way of affidavit dated 12.9.2003. It is incorrect to suggest that I have sworn a false affidavit.” From the above, it is clear that the appellant was the owner of the motorcycle in question and at the time of accident, he was driving the said motorcycle and Satish Kumar and Vikram (deceased) were riding pillion. The said motorcycle overturned after hitting a person as a result of which Vikram sustained injuries and had died. The Ld. Tribunal rightly observed that appellant was the owner of the vehicle in question on the alleged date of the accident by way of affidavit dated 12.9.2003. Taking into consideration the admission of Chaman Lal, he is solely liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants, as per Award of the Ld.Tribunal. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 15.9.2011 MS