Bachitar Singh and Others vs Jaswinder Singh and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, dated 19-7-1983, whereby a sum of Rs. 18,000/- was awarded as compensation with 6 per cent per annum interest against the driver of the offending truck only.

In an accident on 15-4-1982, at about 8.15 P.M., Ajit Pal Singh died. A claim petition was filed by his parents. The deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident and was employed as a Peon in the Punjab State Electricity Board, on a monthly salary of (Rs. 500/-. The offending truck was driven by Jaswinder Singh, respondent No. I. Avtar Singh was impleaded as respondent No 2 being the owner of the said truck. Said Avtar Singh did not appear in spite of service and hence was proceeded ex pane. In the written statement filed by driver Jaswinder Singh, he stated that he did not know as to who was the owner of the truck. According to him, the accident was the result of carelessness and negligent driving of the cycle by Ajit Pal Singh deceased The insurance company also filed the written statement and it denied that the offending truck No PBV-2751 was ever insured with it. The claimants in order to prove the negligence of the driver of the truck and the amount of compensation, examined six witnesses. No evidence was led by the contesting respondents. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether Jaswinder Singh driver respondent No. 1 was driving truck No. PBV-2751 rashly and negligently on 15-41982, at about 8-10 P. M. in the area of village Dadhera near the canal bridge and caused the accident as a result of which Ajit Pal Singh received the injuries and died at the spot ? OPA.

(2) Whether the applicants are the heirs and were dependents upon Ajit Pal Singh at the time of his death, if so, to what effect ? O.P.A.

(3) Whether the applicants are entitled to claim damages, if so, how much and from whom ? OPA.

(4) Relief. Under issue No. 1, it was held that the accident was caused by Jaswinder Singh, respondent No. 1 by his rash and negligent driving. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the claimants and it was found that the claimants are heirs of Ajit Pal Singh deceased and were dependents upon him at the time of his death for the source of their livelihood. Under issue No. 3 a sum of Rs. 100/- per month was determined to be the dependency and by applying a multiplier of ''15'', a sum of Rs. 18,000/- was determined as the compensation. The amount was only made payable by Jaswinder Singh, respondent No. 1, driver of the truck. Avtar Singh respondent No. 2 who was claimed to be the owner of the truck was exempted from payment of the compensation amount on the ground that the claimants have led absolutely no evidence to prove that Avtar Singh, respondent No. 2 was the owner of the truck. So much so even the claimant Bachittar Singh has not stated that Avtar Singh respondent No. 2 was the owner of the offending truck.

Learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that Avtar Singh (respondent No. 2) being the owner of the truck was liable. He was proceeded ex parte and never came forward to contest that he was not owner of the truck. Moreover, even in the written statement filed by the driver. Jaswinder Singh respondent. No. 1, he did not state that Avtar Singh was not the owner of the truck. He simply stated that he does not know as to who is the owner of the truck. In these circumstances, from the pleadings of the parties and Avtar Singh respondent No. 2, having been proceeded ex parte, it could cot be held that he was not owner of the truck. In any case, the offending truck No. PBV-2751 was liable to attachment and sale in execution of the-award and hat being so whosoever may be its owner, was liable for that purpose. The approach of the learned Tribunal in this behalf was wholly wrong and misconceived. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, Avtar Singh will be deemed to be the owner of the offending truck. That being so, he was liable for payment of the amount of compensation as determined by the Tribunal. Since New India Assurance Company-respondent No. 3, denied its liability as the said truck was not insured with it and the owner did not care to come forward to prove that his truck was insured with this company, the Insurance Company could not be held liable for payment of the compensation amount.

In this view of the matter, this appeal succeeds to the extent that the claimants will be entitled to the amount of compensation of Rs. 18,000/-, which will be recoverable from both the respondents i.e. Jaswinder Singh driver as well as Avtar Singh, respondent No. 2, owner of the truck with interest at the rate of 12 per cent instead of 6 per cent per annum as allowed by the Tribunal. The appellants will also be entitled to the costs of this appeal.