Allahabad High Court
Zaffar Mansoor Khan vs Smt. Raju, & Others on 5 October, 2017
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1598 of 2000
Appellant :- Zaffar Mansoor Khan
Respondent :- Smt. Raju, & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- W.H. Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- R.S. Tiwari,C.S.C.,V.C.Dixit,Yogesh Kumar
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
This appeal questions the award of compensation to the respondents no. 1 to 4-claimants in the matter relating to the death of one late Chandra Shekhar who succumbed to the injuries on account of the accident, which he met with motor cycle that was being driven allegedly by one Tarik Zama Khan. It appears that the said driver of the motor cycle also died due to the injuries suffered in the said accident.
The claim petition was preferred arraying the Superintendent of Police and the State of U.P. through Collector, Banda as opposite parties together with the appellants as the owner of the vehicle.
It has been found by the tribunal that the appellant is the purchaser of the said vehicle in an auction that took place on 16th January, 1998 and according to the evidence led by the opposite party nos. 5 and 6 before the tribunal, the vehicle and the papers pertaining to transfer were all physically handed over to the appellant on 5th February, 1998. The appellant contested the aforesaid allegation of having received the papers only and not the physical position of the vehicle. It was also the case of the appellant that he was not the owner of the vehicle as on the dated of the accident i.e. 24.2.1998, inasmuch as, the vehicle had neither been handed over to him, nor the ownership had been transferred as on the said date.
The tribunal recorded findings on the basis of the document dated 5th February, 1998. The words employed in the said document appear to be grammatically not sound but relying on the evidence of PW-5, the tribunal held that the said physical handing over of the vehicle stood corroborated and therefore it came to the conclusion that the appellant was the owner in possession of the vehicle as on the date of the accident i.e. on 24.2.1998. Accordingly, the tribunal fixed the liability on the appellant as the vehicle was admittedly not insured on the said date.
The appellant preferred this appeal along with a stay application and a Division Bench of this court on 23rd November, 2000 passed an interim order directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,0000/- and released an amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the respondent no. 1 (widow) and the balance of the amount was directed to be deposited in fixed deposits for the benefit of the minors.
We have heard Sri Gulrej Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Yogesh Kumar for the claimants-respondents no. 1 to 4 and Mrs. Kirtika Singh for the State respondent nos. 5 and 6 who had already been called upon to furnish their instructions in the matter. The learned Standing counsel informs the Court that the communication has been dispatched to the respondents no. 5 and 6 and further instructions are awaited and therefore, an adjournment is being sought.
The accident is of the year 1998 and what we find is that only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be deposited under the interim order passed in the year 2000 which was 17 years hence. The claimant-respondent no. 1 was allowed to withdraw only a sum of amount of Rs.50,000/-.
With the passing of 17 years there can be no gain saying the fact that the claimants-respondent nos. 2 to 4, who were then minors have attained majority by now. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find it necessary to modify the interim order dated 23rd November, 2000 by providing that on furnishing their proof of age of majority, the respondents no. 2 and 4 shall be entitled to withdraw the balance of the amount that was directed to be deposited in fixed deposit accounts, if not already withdrawn or disbursed by the bank. The amount withdrawn by the claimants shall be subject to the out come of the final order to be passed.
The respondents no. 5 and 6 shall respond immediately to this appeal as the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is purely based on the admitted facts with regard to transfer of ownership relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Pushpa v. Shakuntala, (2011) 2 SCC 240 to the effect that the appellant cannot be held liable for any such payment, and if the registration papers that existed as on the date of accident i.e. on 24.2.1998 recorded the name of the Superintendent of Police as the owner, then in that event the appellant's claim that no liability can be fixed on him and consequently the liability obviously would be that of the registered owner namely the Superintendent of Police may have to be assessed.
This legal position that has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant has therefore to be explained by the State and as such the learned Standing counsel may obtain instructions on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and assist the Court accordingly by the next date fixed or else this court shall proceed to issue necessary directions as an interim measure to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to deposit the entire balance of the awarded amount in the event any further adjournment is sought.
Let the matter came up on 24th October, 2017.
Copy of the order may be obtained by the learned Standing Counsel for compliance.
Order Date :- 5.10.2017
Ishan
