Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1570 (PNJ)

Jaspreet Singh v. Ramandeep Kaur

2014-11-17

MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Mahavir S. Chauhan , J. (Oral):- On 16.04.2008, Swaran Singh and his cousin Yadwinder Singh were coming from Sanaur on motor-cycle bearing registration No. PB-11 AE 4624. Swaran Singh was driving the motor-cycle and Yadwinder Singh was riding the pillion. When the motor-cycle reached near Adh Wali Nehar in the area of Sanaur, Balwinder Singh brought a tractor-trolly by driving it at a high speed and in a rash, negligent and zig-zag manner and hit the motor-cycle resulting into the motor-cycle and its occupants falling on the ground. Swaran Singh died instantaneously and Yadvinder Singh received multiple injuries. 2. MACT Case No. 27/T dated 17.07.2008/04.06.2009 was brought by the dependents of Swaran Singh to claim compensation on account of loss of dependency caused by death of Swaran Singh, while MACT case No.46/28.7.2008 was brought by Yadwinder Singh to claim compensation in respect of the injuries/disability suffered by him. Both these claim applications have been accepted by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short – ‘Tribunal’) by the two separate awards of 21.04.2012 holding Balwinder Singh (Driver of tractor-trolley) and present appellant – Jaspreet (original owner of tractor-trolley) liable jointly and severely to pay the amount of compensation, to the tune of Rs.21,94,000/- (in FAO No.4872 of 2012) and Rs.3,46,528/- (in FAO No.4873 of 2012) alongwith intereset @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realisation. 3. To challenge the aforesaid awards dated 21.04.2012, appellant – Jaspreet Singh has brought two separate appeals namely FAO No. 4872 of 2012 titled as “Jaspreet Singh Vs. Ramandeep Kaur and others” and FAO No. 4873 of 2012 titled as “Jaspreet Singh Vs. Yadwinder Singh and Ors.” 4. Respondents are contesting the appeals. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Only contention put forth on behalf of the appellant is that the accident took place on 16.04.2008, but much before that he had sold the tractor in question to Balwinder Singh (on 31.03.2008) and affidavit, Exhibit RW-2/B, was executed by Balwinder Singh and RW-2/C by him (Jaspreet), in this respect and the registration of tractor was transferred in the name of Balwinder Singh on the basis thereof. Learned counsel has also referred to Exhibit RD an application moved by Balwinder Singh to get the tractor in question released on superdari and order Exhibit PE an order passed by the criminal court to release the tractor to Balwinder Singh on superdari. According to learned counsel for the appellant as the tractor stood sold to Balwinder Singh on 31.03.2008, he could apply for change of registration within one month in terms of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended upto date) (for short- ‘the Act’), and as such he can not be held liable for the consequences of the accident that took place during that period of one month. 7. The contention, however, is resisted on behalf of the respondents and it is submitted that as the appellant was recorded as owner of the vehicle in question in the records of the registering authority, he has been rightly held to be owner thereof by the learned Tribunal and, thus, he can not escape the liability arising from the accident which took place on 16.04.2008, when he, admittedly, was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. 8. Learned Tribunal has, in order to fasten the liability on the appellant, referred to Section 2 (30) of the Act, which defines term “owner” as under:- “Owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.” 9. It is admitted on behalf of the parties that on the day of accident the tractor in question stood in the name of the appellant. Case of the appellant is based on the affidavit, Exhibit RW-2/B, stated to have been executed by Balwinder Singh and affidavit Exhibit RW-2/C statedly executed by the appellant. The affidavit Exhibit RW-2/C is a piece of selfserving evidence brought on record by the appellant and, as such, it cannot be used against the respondents. Affidavit Exhibit RW-2/B, no doubt has been marked as an Exhibit, but neither the stated author of the affidavit nor the notary public, who might have attested it has been examined as a witness in proof of it. Affidavit Exhibit RW-2/B, no doubt has been marked as an Exhibit, but neither the stated author of the affidavit nor the notary public, who might have attested it has been examined as a witness in proof of it. Learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon Patangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2010(1) Civil Court Cases 668 (S.C.) to hold that in the absence of examination of the notary public, the affidavit could not be said to have been duly proved on record. It is needless to state that a party to the litigation is not absolved of its obligation to prove a document as per law of evidence only because the document has been marked as an Exhibit. In any case, the other side deserves an opportunity to rebut the correctness of the affidavit, had such an opportunity been denied to it by not examining its author or the notary in proof of it. 10. In the case of Dr. T.V. Jose Vs. Chacko P.M. @ Thankachan, 2001 (8) SCC 748 , Supreme Court has held that till the name of the transferee is recorded in the records of the registering authority the original owner continues to be owner of the vehicle and is liable to pay compensation if an accident occurs before name of the transferee is brought on record of the registering authority. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Sugar Singh Vs. Mehar Singh (FAO No.6517 of 2012, decided on 27.05.2014 of this Court) to contend to the contrary. However, in the cited judgment evidence was available to prove a transfer of the vehicle whereas in the case in hand, as hereinbefore stated, the appellant has failed to bring on record any evidence, whatsoever, to prove that the tractor in question stood transferred in the name of Balwinder Singh. It may be added here that, Exhibit RD, an application for release of tractor on superdari and Exhibit RE order passed by criminal Court for release of tractor on superdari, cannot be said to be proof of transfer of ownership of the tractor in question in favour of Balwinder Singh. 12. In view of the above, the appeals are found to be without any substance and are, accordingly, dismissed. 13. No Costs. 14. 12. In view of the above, the appeals are found to be without any substance and are, accordingly, dismissed. 13. No Costs. 14. Before parting with this judgment, it may be placed on record that, if so, advised and, so permissible in law, the appellant may take steps to recover the amount of compensation from aforesaid Balwinder Singh, of course, on proof of transfer of ownership of the tractor involved herein on the date of accident.