Back
High Court Of Delhi
NANU MAL - Appellant
Versus
INDER SINGH - Respondent
First Appeal Order 28-D of 1965
Decided On : 01/21/1971
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 110-A, 110-D - ACCIDENT - OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLE - TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURER - FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - VALUE AS EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
A truck ran over a raised roundabout, resulting in the death of three persons and injuries to three others. The legal representatives of the deceased and the injured persons filed petitions under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming damages. The petitions were contested by the alleged owner of the truck, the driver, and the insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal dismissed the petitions, holding that the truck was not proved to have been involved in the accident. The court upheld the Tribunal's findings, holding that the evidence did not establish that the truck was involved in the accident.
Issues: 1. Whether the truck was owned by the alleged owner or the transport company at the time of the accident? 2. Whether the truck was involved in the accident?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The evidence established that the truck had been transferred from the transport company to the alleged owner prior to the date of the accident. Therefore, the transport company was not the owner of the truck at the time of the accident. 2. The First Information Report, which was the only evidence that the truck was involved in the accident, was not admissible as substantive evidence because the informant was not examined in court. Therefore, the court could not rely on the First Information Report to establish that the truck was involved in the accident.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all six appeals, holding that there was no merit in any of them.
( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of six appeals, F. A. O. 23-D of 1965 to FA. O. 28-D of 1965, filed under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, Act No. 4 of 1939. The circumstances under which the proceedings, out of which these appeals have arisen, were initiated, are as follows :-
( 2 ) ON the night between June 8 and 9, 1961 at about 12. 45 a m a truck drove at a great speed from the side of Shakti Nagar and ran over the raised round-about (gole chakar) near Ram Rup Vidya Mandir. A number of persons were sleeping at that lime on the said round about. The truck struck several persons, resulting in the death of three of them, viz. Tej Ram, a boy of 16 years, Pushpa Devi, aged about 12 years and Kishan Lal aged 32 years ; and injuries to three other persons, viz. Hari Ram, Budhi Ram and Krishan Prashad It was a dark night. But one Faquir Chand, it is aid, holding a gas lantern was passing that say. It was in that gas light that it was noticed, it is alleged, that the truck bore legistration No D. L. G. 638. Pritam Singh said to have been the driver of the truck. The accident was said to have been caused due to the negligent and rash driving by Pritam Singh. The truck, was said to be owned by Inder Singh. The legal representatives of the three deceased persons and the three injured persons filed six separate petitions under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed for damages in their respective petitions.
( 3 ) TO begin with, the petitions were filed against Inder Singh, as the owner of the truck and Pritam Singh, the driver. Subsequently, however, Victory Transport Co. P. Ltd. , Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. were impleaded as respondents. It was stated that Victory Transport Co. P. Ltd. was probably the owner of the truck and Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. , was the insurer with whom the said truck was insured. The Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. was also stated to be another insurer with whom the said truck was insured. In F. A. O. 23-D of 1965, Nanumal and his wife Anandi, claimed Rs. 20,000. 00as damages on account of the death of their daughter Pushpa. In F. A. O, 25-D of 1965, Mrs. Bhagwati Devi claimed Rs. 30. 000. 00 on account of damages for the death of her father. Kishan Lal. In F. A. O 26-D of 1965, Behari Lal and his wife Har Piari, claimed Rs. 30,000. 00 on account of the death of their son Tej Ram aged about 16 years. In F A. O. 24-D of 1965 Hari Ram had claimed Rs. 25,000. 00 on account of injuries suffered by him. In F. A. O. 27-D of 1965 Bhudhi Ram claimed Rs. 25,000. 00 on account of injuries. In F. A. O. 28-D of 1965 Kishan Prashad claimed Rs. 25,000. 00 likewise for the injuries suffered by him. As all the six applications had arisen out of the same accident, they were consolidated and were disposed of by the common order of the Motor accidents claims Tribunal.
( 4 ) THE petitions were contested by Victory Transport Co. P. Ltd. , as well as by, Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. Inder Singh and Pritam Singh did not appear and ex parte proceedings were taken against them. Subsequently, the ex parte order against Inder Singh was set aside on his application. But after filing written statement he again absented himself. In the written statement he denied the allegations in the petitions and stated that he was not the owner of the truck. The Victory Transport Company Private Limited denied any connection with the offending truck and stated that Pritam Singh was never in its employment. The Vanguard Insurance Company Limited disputed its liability on the ground that the offending vehicle belonged to Inder Singh and was never insured with it. The Victory Transport Company Private Limited, who took out the insurance to begin with had transferred the vehicle to Inder Singh. This resulted in its insurance cover coming to an end. For this reason the insurance company denied its liability. It was also pleaded that the vehicle was not being plied under the dir
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
