Krishan vs Jarnail Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by Krishan, a person who had been arrayed as owner of the offending vehicle before learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short ''learned Tribunal''). He questions his liability to satisfy the award on the ground that he was never the owner of the truck in question and that his father, who was owner of the truck, had sold it before the accident to one Swami Anand Dass Chela Swami Avdhut Mani. Alongwith an appeal an application has been filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 504 days in filing the appeal. He has claimed that he was not aware of the ownership of the truck because the same was already sold by his father and that he came to know of the award against him when execution petition was filed against him. According to him, thereafter he verified the facts from the documents and found that the truck had already been sold.

It is a case where the appellant was sued as respondent No. 2. He was proceeded against ex-parte by the Tribunal. It can be inferred from the same that he was proceeded against ex-parte as he was duly served in the claim petition. Moreover, there is no plea in the application to the effect that he was not served in the claim petition as one of the respondents. It shows that he had knowledge of the petition and he can be presumed to have knowledge of the passing of the award also.

The award was passed on 29.09.2011. There is no plea to justify the delay of 504 days. The only plea taken by the appellant is that he was not aware of the proceedings, which is a patently wrong fact. He was aware of the claim petition as he was proceeded against ex-parte by learned Tribunal.

In these circumstances, I do not find any ground to condone the delay in bringing this appeal.

Moreover, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant admits that the appellant had been registered owner of the vehicle. If this vehicle was sold by the father of the applicant-appellant to Swami Anand Dass Chela Swami Avdhut Mani prior to the accident itself, the registration certificate remained in the name of the appellant. When the registration certificate still remains in the name of the appellant how the story of sale of the truck by the father of the appellant to Swami Anand Dass Chela Swami Avdhut Mani can be believed. In these circumstances, the liability fixed by learned Tribunal on respondents No. 1 and 2 is unexceptional.

In this view of the matter, the application for condonation of delay of 504 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. The appeal is consequently dismissed, being barred by limitation.