Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 543 (PNJ)

Lajpat Rai v. Satbir Singh

2003-04-21

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2003
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. - This appeal has been filed by Lajpat Rai, the alleged owner of Matador No. HLR-3119 being driven by Avin, respondent No. 1, which met with an accident on 12.9.1983, causing serious injuries to Prithvi Singh and several others. Prithvi Singh ultimately died on 16.9.1983 at the Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. The claim petition was thereafter filed by his legal heirs claiming compensation in which they impleaded Avin, the driver, as respondent No. 1, Lajpat Rai (the present appellant) as respondent No. 2 and the Insurance Company as respondent No. 3. In the claim petition, the claimants pleaded that the driver and owner of the aforesaid vehicle as also the Insurance Company were liable to pay compensation. 2. In the joint reply filed by Avin and Lajpat Rai, the fact that Lajpat Rai was the owner of the vehicle was not specifically denied and all that stated was that all the owners were not impleaded as parties in the claim petition. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- "1. Whether Prithvi Singh died in an accident caused due to rash, negligent and careless driving of Matador No. HRL-3119 driven by respondent No. 1 Sh. Avin ? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to pay compensation, if so, its quantum, against whom and in what proportionate ? 3. Whether the petition is time barred ? 4. Whether the petition is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties ? 5. Relief." 4. On issue No. 1, the Tribunal vide its award dated 30.4.1985 held that Prithvi SIngh had died in this accident, which was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Matador by its driver Avin. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal observed that though it had come in the evidence that the Matador in question belonged to Bhoop Chand and not to Lajpat Rai, yet neither Avin nor Lajpat Rai had cared to deny the ownership of the vehicle and as the vehicle was being looked after by Lajpat Rai, the liability to pay compensation was on him as also the driver of the vehicle and not on the Insurance Company, as Bhoop Chand in whose name the Insurance cover stood, had not been made a party. The Tribunal accordingly passed an award in favour of the claimants. 5. The Tribunal accordingly passed an award in favour of the claimants. 5. The present appeal has been filed by Lajpat Rai primarily on the ground that as he was not the owner of the vehicle in question, he was not liable to pay compensation. Alongwith the appeal, C.M. No. 3384-CII of 1985 had been filed by Lajpat Rai for impleading Bhoop Chand as one of the respondents. 6. Vide order dated 4.10.2000, Bhoop Chand was impleaded as a party and notice was issued to him. As per office report, Bhoop Chand has been duly served. He has, however, not put in appearance. 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal had clearly affirmed that as per the record, the vehicle in question belonged to Bhoop Chand and as such, the further observations of the Tribunal that Lajpat Rai was presumed to be its owner, was erroneous. It has accordingly been urged that in any case, Lajpat Rai was not liable to pay compensation awarded to the claimants and the award of the Tribunal needed to be modified to that extent. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the award of the Tribunal. 9. Admittedly, a finding of fact had been recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record that matador No. HLR-3119 stood in the name of Bhoop Chand and it had been insured with the Insurance Company. It is equally true that in their written statement, neither Avin nor Lajpat Rai had revealed the true ownership of the vehicle and they had chosen to file evasive replies stating therein that Lajpat Rai was not the owner of the vehicle in question without revealing the identity of the true owner of the vehicle. To my mind, therefore, the claimants could not be faulted and the claim petition was rightly not dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, the more so, as the accident had happened on 12.9.1983 and the deceased Prithvi Singh was a poor man (a rickshaw puller) belonging to the State of U.P. His family was, thus, undoubtedly in indigent circumstances. To my mind, therefore, it would be appropriate, if while exonerating Lajpat Rai-appellant, for the liability to pay compensation, the obligation is fixed on Bhoop Chand, the owner of the vehicle, the driver as also the Insurance Company with which the vehicle had been duly insured. They are accordingly held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. 10. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal is modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. Appeal allowed.