K.L. Katakwar vs Mohanmati and Others

N.K. Agarwal, J.

Heard on admission.

This is owner''s appeal against the award dated 29-3-2008 passed by the IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC) Raigarh in Claim Case No. 27/2007 whereby and where under learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/-towards compensation for the death of one Juglal Chauhan, to his wife Mohanmati and as against the appellant, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its recovery.

Brief facts of the case are that Juglal Chauhan met with an accident with a Scooter No. MP 26 YA 8086 being driven by the respondent No. 1 on 14-3-2004 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident.

Claimant, the unfortunate widow of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming Rs. 8,30,000/- as compensation for the death of her husband against the appellant as well as respondents No. 2 and 3. The appellant by filing his written statement denied his liability to pay compensation on the ground that he sold the vehicle on 13-3-1992 much prior to the date of accident to respondent no. 3 Gandhilal Dewangan and handed over its possession and therefore, he not being owner of the vehicle not liable to compensate the claimant. The respondent No. 3 also filed his written statement and denied such sale in his favour by the appellant and stated that he has been arrayed unnecessarily as a party in the claim petition.

Learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence led, material placed on record and the submissions made by the parties, awarded Rs. 2,00,000/-as compensation along with interest holding the appellant liable for its payment to the claimant. Hence this appeal.

Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Tribunal has erred in passing the award against the appellant on two counts, first the appellant had already sold the vehicle to respondent No. 3 in terms of Ex. D-1 and secondly Sukhiram was not under his employment and the appellant cannot be held vicariously liable for the tortuous done by said Sukhiram.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award as also the record of the Tribunal.

Admittedly, the appellant is registered owner of the offending vehicle; original of said sale deed has been filed by the appellant himself before the Tribunal. As per his evidence, he did not execute any affidavit in support of said sale deed to be filed before the R.T.O. authorities to transfer the vehicle in the name of alleged purchaser nor any material has been placed that he has signed the requisite forms for his transfer. The respondent No. 3 denied such sale, for that, he also examined himself in which he denied the execution of such sale deed (Ex. D-1). The Tribunal after appreciating entire evidence in this regard rightly disbelieved the said sale deed and also the document Ex. D-1 and rightly held liable the appellant and the finding recorded in this regard cannot be faulted with. The second point urged by the appellant is also without substance. Once it is held that the appellant was owner/registered, owner of the vehicle and was in possession of the vehicle at the time of accident, it cannot be presumed that the said Sukhiram was driving said scooter without authority and permission of appellant. More over, this defense has not been taken by the appellant in his written statement. No other points have been raised by the appellant.

In view of the foregoing, the appeal being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at admission stage.