Delhi High Court
Jaspal Singh vs Asha Rani And Ors. on 6 October, 2005
Equivalent citations: II (2006) ACC 587, 2006 ACJ 577, (2006) 142 PLR 21
Author: P Nandrajog
Bench: P Nandrajog
ORDER
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. R-6, Kusum Singh was the registered owner of two-wheeler scooter bearing No. DL-4S-A-8170. The scooter struck another two wheeler scooter which resulted in the death of Ramesh Chand.
2. By and under the impugned award finding returned is that Jasmeet Singh (respondent No. 5 in appeal), son of appellant was driving the motor vehicle i.e., scooter No. DL-4S-A-8170. Finding is that he was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and death of Ramesh Chand is due to his afore-noted rash and negligent act.
3. On the issue of ownership of the offending scooter, evidence came on record that the appellant had signed on Form-30 (Transfer Form). However, he took the defense that he had signed the form blank and that the deal did not materialize.
4. For record, I may note that stated transfer of the scooter from respondent No. 6 to the appellant was stated to have been somewhere in July, 1992.
5. The Tribunal has accordingly held that the appellant as well as respondent No. 6 are liable to pay the compensation. Unfortunately, in the instant case, the scooter was not insured.
6. It is urged by learned Counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 6 did not step in the witness box and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the appellant that the deal between him and respondent No. 6 never materialised.
7. I am afraid, appellant could not explain as to how his son was driving the scooter when the accident took place on 21.1.1995. In my opinion, the fact that the son of the appellant was driving the scooter coupled with the fact that on the transfer form, though not finally given effect to, signatures of the appellant were admitted by him, finding returned by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with.
8. I may only note that the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to record finding on the basis of an inquiry. The Tribunal does not function as a Civil Court. As long as the trial conducted by the Tribunal is fair and adequate opportunity is given to the parties to defend themselves and as long as there is material on record on which findings can be sustained, award passed by the Tribunal will be legal and valid.
9. I additionally take note of the fact that in large number of transactions pertaining to motor vehicles in India, evidenced by various law reports, subsequent purchasers act callously in not only getting the vehicle officially transferred in their names but additionally by not even paying third party insurance.
10. No merits.
11. Dismissed. LCR be returned.
