Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 319 (JHR)

Prabhu Sao v. Rampati Devi

2002-03-08

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2002
ORDER 1. Lavkush Prasad (Sao), son of Ram Chandra Sao was born on 2.1.1970 and was a student of Class-X. On 1.1.1988, while he was coining along with Shambhu Prasad after taking bath in river Longa with a bicycle, an International tractor (BRZ-1330) dashed him near Hanho turning, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and died and the bicycle was also damaged. 2. The said tractor belonged to Prabhu Sao, appellant herein and at the time of accident it was being driven by the driver Mahendra Prasad. 3. Parents of the deceased filed claim application under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for compensation. Ram Chandra Sao, father of the deceased died during pendency of the claim case and his name was deleted. 4. Prabhu Sao appeared and filed written statement denying himself to be owner of the tractor at the time of accident. He claimed that the tractor belongs to Kulbansh Slngh. Hence, the said Kulbansh Singh was added as party in the claim case, who also appeared and filed written statement. Both of them contested the compensation case. 5. Prabhu Sao claimed that neither the tractor in question was involved in the accident nor he was the owner thereof on 1,1.1988. On 8.2.1988, he purchased the tractor from Kulbansh Singh. However, he admitted that after about a month of the accident tractor in question was seized by police from his residence. 6. Kulbansh Singh was added as opposite party No. 3 in the compensation case. His case was that no doubt he was owner of the tractor in question but on 24.3.1973 he had sold it to Sarju Kahar and Kashi Sah. In course of time, they sold it to Prabhu Sao who on 1.1.1988 was owner of the tractor in question. 7. On the basis of evidence of AWs 1, 2 and 3, who were eye witnesses to the occurrence, it was established that in the accident tractor (BRZ-1330) was involved. It was also proved that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the said tractor, 8. So far as ownership of the tractor at the time of accident is concerned, besides evidence of AWs 4 and 5 who stated that Prabhu Sao was owner of the tractor, Prabhu Sao himself admitted in his written statement that the said tractor was seized from his residence. So far as ownership of the tractor at the time of accident is concerned, besides evidence of AWs 4 and 5 who stated that Prabhu Sao was owner of the tractor, Prabhu Sao himself admitted in his written statement that the said tractor was seized from his residence. No evidence was brought on record to prove that actually Kulbansh Singh was the owner of the tractor on the date of the accident. A copy of the affidavit said to have been sworn in by Kulbansh Singh before the Notary Public, Patna, on 8.2.1988 has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the memorandum of appeal, wherein it was stated that "I have sold my Tractor bearing Registration No. BRZ-1330 and Tailor No. BRZ-1329 to Shri Prabhu Prasad S/o Sri Khub Lal Prasad of village Nagarutarhi, PS Nagarutarhi, district Palamu". No date of sale was mentioned therein. Copy of duplicate registration certificate of the tractor in question has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the memorandum of appeal, which shows that Kulbansh Singh was registered as owner of the said tractor on 24.2.1971, and subsequently name of Prabhu Prasad, appellant herein was entered as owner. These two documents, Annexures 1 and 2 were not produced before the tribunal and also do not support the case of Prabhu Sao that he was not the owner of the tractor in question on the date of accident. 9. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the tribunal that the tractor (BRZ-1330) was involved in the accident in question and Prabhu Sao, appellant herein was the owner thereof at the relevant time. 10. Tribunal on the basis of materials on record calculated a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,56,000/- to be paid as compensation under the Act to the mother of the deceased with Interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the judgment till realisation. Quantum of compensation has not been challenged and on 28.10.1999 the appeal was admitted to be heard only on the question of ownership of the tractor, i.e. whether appellant Prabhu Sao was or was not owner of the tractor at the time when the accident took place. 11. There is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.