Amarjit Singh vs Amar Singh and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Faridkot on a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, had awarded a sum of Rs. 28,000/- to the claimants on account of death of Rajinder Singh, who died in an accident on 1.2.1982. The liability to pay compensation was fastened on Amarjit Singh, who was driving the Yezdi Motor Cycle No. PUC 3199.

Dissatisfied with the award, appellant, Amarjit Singh has filed the present appeal for setting aside the award of the Tribunal on the ground that the liability to pay compensation on him has been wrongly fastened. The claimants who are the parents of the deceased have also filed cross objection No. 27-CII of 1985 for enhancement of the compensation. As such, the appeal and cross objections are being disposed of by a common judgment.

The death of the deceased in this case is not in dispute. The only question which has cropped up for consideration is with regard to the fastening of liability. The other question is who was the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.

The challenge to the award is that the motor cycle was duly insured with the Insurance company. As such the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The Tribunal has returned a categoric finding that registration of the offending vehicle is not in favour of Mangal Singh and there is no evidence on record to show that Resham Singh had sold the motor cycle to Mangal Singh and Mangal Singh was the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.

From the file it is also observed that Resham Singh, who was the owner of he motor cycle had not been impleaded as a party and instead one Ramesh Singh had been impleaded. The Tribunal has also returned a finding that since the owner of the offending vehicle has not been impleaded as a party, he cannot be held liable to pay compensation.

It has incumbent upon the appellant-Amarjit Singh who was driving the motor cycle, to have rebutted the claim to the effect that he was not the owner of the offending vehicle.

It is pertinent to mention that the registration of the vehicle was in the name of Resham Singh, who is not a party before this Court. The Motor Cycle in question was got insured by Mangal Singh but the registration certificate is in the name of Resham Singh. As such, the liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened on Mangal Singh or Insurance company.

Since the motor cycle in question which was being driven by Amarjit Singh, appellant, had struck against the deceased-Rajinder Singh, the liability to pay compensation on him has been rightly fastened. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. The compensation awarded to the claimants is just and fair. There is no scope for enhancement. Cross objections are also dismissed.