IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 108 of 2008 Reserved on: 13.5.2010 Date of decision: 31.05.2010 Het Ram Gaitri ... Appellant Versus Pawan Kumar and Ors. ... Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. B.S. Chauhan and Mr. Yoginder Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla, dated 5.12.2007, vide which the appellant was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,92,145/- alongwith interest. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, was filed by the petitioner Pawan Kumar. He was employed as a conductor in truck No. HP-51-2231 and was earning Rs.2000/- in a month. He 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 alleged his age as 19 years. When the accident took place, the petitioner was sitting in the truck and suffered injuries and he had suffered 70% disability. Respondent No. 1 C.L. Verma, respondent No. 2 before this Court, was owner of the truck at the time of accident, but it was also learnt that the truck had been sold by him to respondent No. 3 (appellant) before this Court. The vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rupees Ten Lacs as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, as claimed? OPP 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 2 & 3. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. 4. Whether the provisions of Section 163-A are not applicable to the present case? OPR 4. 5. Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR 4. 6. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence, to drive the vehicle in question? OPR 4. 7. Whether the petitioner was gratuitous passenger? OPR 4. 8. Whether the petition is collusive, as alleged? OPR 4. 9. Relief. 4. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned award allowed the petition and fastened the responsibility for payment of compensation upon respondent No. 3 i.e. the purchaser of the vehicle and being aggrieved by the said award, the said respondent No. 3 has filed the present appeal. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 6. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments. The only question raised was as to the responsibility of the appellant, who was the transferee of the vehicle in question. Insofar as the responsibility of Insurance Company is concerned, the same was only in regard to third party and the petitioner being the conductor in the vehicle in question cannot be termed as third party and as such, the Insurance Company was not liable. A question, therefore, arises for consideration is as to who was the owner of the vehicle on the date, since the responsibility under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is of the owner. The petitioner stated on oath that respondent No. 2 was the owner. There was no privity of contract in between respondent No. 3 i.e. transferee and the Insurance Company and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable since the contract of insurance was in between the original owner, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 i.e. Insurance Company only. The petitioner admittedly was employed by respondent No. 3 and also admitted that the salary was being paid to him by his father i.e. respondent No. 3. He further stated that he did not know when his father purchased the vehicle from respondent No. 1 and the R.C. continued to be in the name of respondent No. 1. However, this fact stands established that the vehicle stood already sold to respondent No. 3, though the name of respondent No. 1 continued to be shown in the certificate of registration. The decision in case Iswhar Lal Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company and Ors., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1319, deals with the 4 question of responsibility of the Insurance Company towards third party, but that question does not arise in the present case, since here the petitioner was not a third party, but was a conductor in the vehicle itself. 7. Therefore, it follows from the above discussion that since the vehicle already stood sold to respondent No. 3 on the date of the accident, therefore, the responsibility was admittedly of respondent No. 3 who had purchased the vehicle and was the owner for the last 5-6 years. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that respondent No. 3 being the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay the compensation. No ruling to the contrary was cited by the learned counsel for appellant during the course of augments and as such, I do not find any infirmity in the award passed by the learned trial Court fastening the responsibility upon the transferee/purchaser. 8. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own costs. ( V.K. Ahuja ), May 31 , 2010 Judge (BSS) 5