IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO 630/2009 (O&M). Date of Decision:17.2.2009 Budh Ram ..........Appellant Versus Mukesh Kumar and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Arun Yadav,Advocate for the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle. JASWANT SINGH,J C.M.No.2167-CII/2009(Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act). For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit of the appellant, the application is allowed and delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.630/2009. Appellant-Budh Ram ( subsequent owner of the offending vehicle) has filed the present appeal against the award dated 1.10.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short the Tribunal) whereby the claim petition filed by Subhash Chander and Smt. Ramesh Devi, was partly allowed and they were awarded a compensation of Rs.2,35,400/- alognwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, for the death of their son Kuldeep, aged 22 years, in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 15.4.2006, involving tractor bearing registration no. RJ-02-8702 (for short offending vehicle) owned by FAO 630/2009 (O&M). -2- appellant and driven by respondent no.1-Mukesh Kumar. Succinctly summed up the facts of the case, as stated by respondents 6 and 7-claimants in their claim petition are that on 15.4.2006, their deceased son Kuldeep while driving his motorcycle bearing No. HR-35-C/5577, on the left side of the road at a moderate speed, was returning to his/their Village Pranpura. At about 7.15 p.m., when he reached in the area of Village Mundi the offending vehicle came from the side of Village Pranpura being driven by Mukesh Kumar-respondent no.1- in a rash, negligent and zigzag manner and struck against the motorcycle. Resultantly, deceased Kuldeep fell down and sustained grievous injuries. While being taken to General Hospital, Rewari, he succumbed to his injuries. FIR No.57 dated 15.4.2006 under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered in this regard at PS Khol. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 was filed by the parents of the deceased against respondents seeking compensation of Rs.10 lacs. Upon notice of the claim petition, the driver, registered owners and appellant alongwith one Bhim Singh (respondent no.6) FAO 630/2009 (O&M). -3- being the further subsequent owner of the offending vehicle filed their separate written statements resisting the claim petition on various grounds taken in the said written statements. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence brought on record learned Tribunal passed the impugned award, as detailed above, holding the appellant alongwith respondents 1 to 4, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. Hence the present appeal by Budh Ram- subsequent owner of the offending tractor. It is sole contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant-subsequent owner that the Tribunal has wrongly held the appellant liable to pay the compensation alongwith respondents 1 to 4, since respondents 2 to 4 were the registered owners of the offending vehicle and as such the appellant has no concern with it. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. FAO 630/2009 (O&M). -4- The learned Tribunal, in para 18 of the impugned award, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective pleas, held as under:- “18. It is an admitted fact that the respondents no.2 to 4 are still recorded to be the registered owners of the tractor no. RJ-02/8702. It is proved on the record that they had sold the same to respondent no.5-Budh Ram prior to the accident, but his name was not incorporated in the registration certificate. RW3 has stated that no document was prepared regarding sale/purchase. According to the latest law of the Hon'ble Apex court of India in case titled P.P.Mohammed v. K.Rajappan and others (supra) the registered owner as well as the person in whose possession/control, the vehicle was available on the date of accident would be jointly liable to the third party. In view of the circumstances, the respondent no.2 to 5 alongwith the respondent no.1 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the FAO 630/2009 (O&M). -5- respondents no.1 to 5.” Respondents 2 to 4 (registered owners) categorically deposed that they had sold the offending vehicle to Budh Ram in the year 2000 for which, he had obtained a loan from Punjab National Bank. In support of their case,they examined Ashok Kumar Sharma-RW2, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kaithal. RW-2 Ashok Kumar Sharma, on the basis of record pertaining to loan account of offending vehicle proved Exhibits RW2/A to RW2/C and deposit slips Ex.RW2/D and Ex.RW2/E. The deposit slips Exhibits RW2/D and RW2/E were signed by appellant Budh Ram. Vide Exhibit RW2/D, appellant Budh Ram had deposited the loan amount and vide Exhibit RW2/E, the loan account was closed/finally settled by him. In the face of documentary evidence proved by none else than a Senior Manager, of a nationalised bank, the contention of the learned counsel that the appellant has no concern with the offending vehicle, stands belied up to the hilt. Registration of the vehicle, on the date of accident in the name of respondents 2 to 4, cannot be exploited by the appellant-Budh Ram (subsequent owner) to absolve FAO 630/2009 (O&M). -6- himself of the joint and several liability to pay the compensation alongwith respondents 1 to 4, especially when it stands proved on the record that he he had been repaying the loan amount obtained by him for purchasing the offending vehicle. No other point has been urged. For the reasons stated above,the present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 17.2.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge