Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Barindera Traders vs Gurdip Kaur & Others on 14 March, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
2024:PHHC:036737 FAO-1051-1992 -l- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 135 FAO-1051-1992 Date of decision: 14.03.2024 M/S BARJINDERA TRADERS .. APPELLANT VS. GURDIP KAUR & OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. Arjun Dhaliwal, Advocate for Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the appellant. 2k SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
1. Instant appeal has been filed under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, assailing award dated 14.03.1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "MACT"), Gurdaspur.
2. Facts, in brief, may be noticed.
3. A car bearing No.PBG 3423 was involved in an accident with a scooter, which was driven by Mohinder Singh. Lakhwinder Kaur, his wife was sitting on the pillion. As a result of the collision, both the two wheeler riders unfortunately expired. Their legal representatives filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act for grant of compensation, which has been accepted and impugned award for Rs.1,72,800/- with costs was passed in their favour.
4. I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the material placed on the record.
Sheetal 2024.03.21 17:04 es @ accuracy and thenticity of this order/judgment authen High Court, Chandigarh 2024:PHHC:036737 FAO-1051-1992 -2-
5. The sole argument raised by counsel for the appellant is that he was not the registered owner of the vehicle. This argument deserves to be noticed and rejected. In the evidence led before the MACT, it has been established that the appellant had purchased the vehicle from Joginder Pal, respondent No.8, vide agreement to sell Ex.R-2 and had paid part consideration. The possession of the vehicle was transferred to the appellant. It has been further established that the vehicle was being driven by Prem Kumar, respondent No.5, who was employed as a driver by the appellant. Furthermore, after the accident, the vehicle was released on sapurdhari on an application moved by the appellant. Mere fact that it had not been registered in his name is immaterial. The finding recorded by the MACT, therefore, does not call for any interference.
6. There is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 14.03.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL) sheetal JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Sheetal 2024.03.21 17:04 I attest to the accuracy an authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh