Liability of the owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation to the road accident victim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, despite the transfer of the vehicle to a third person.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 04.07.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-01, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal'), in MACP No. 575/515/14 titled Lalit Kumar Sharma vs. Narender & Anr., awarding a compensation of Rs.12,69,620/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from 14.11.2006 till realization thereof, in favour of the claimant/respondent no.1 herein.

2. Before the learned Tribunal, it was the case of the respondent no.1 that on 26.06.2006, while he was going for his duty on a bike bearing no. DL-9SK-3115, he was hit by a car bearing no. UAN 4919 which was being driven by the appellant herein in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and was rushed to the hospital.

3. PW-2 Dr. P.K. Mangla, Chest Physician, Indian Spinal Injury Centre, Sec. C1 Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, deposed before the learned Tribunal that on 26.06.2006, the respondent no.1 herein was brought by the police to the hospital and was found having chest injuries from both sides and blood and air were oozing out from his lungs and he was having an acute respiratory distress. There was an air leak from the left lung and he required open surgery which was done by Dr. R.C. Jain on 30.06.2006.

4. Dr. R.C. Jain was examined as PW-3 and he had deposed about the operation. The respondent no.1 also suffered fracture in his left femur at two places and left forearm and was operated for the same.

5. The Investigating Officer of the case, Sub Inspector Munshi Singh, was examined as PW-5.

6. PW-6 Head Constable Chandu Lal (Retd.) deposed that on the date of the accident, he was on picket duty at Daulatpur Check Post and at about 8.45 AM, he saw one white coloured Maruti car bearing no. UAN 4919 coming from the Najafgarh side and going towards Jatigra when the accident took place between the motorcycle driven by respondent no.1 and the Maruti car.

7. I may herein note that a suggestion was given to PW-6 Head Constable Chandu Lal (Retd.), whether he was the one who lodged the report of the accident registered as DD No. 10A. He admitted to the same, however, at the same time, denied that he had lodged the report regarding the accident of a dumper with the motorcycle. He further stated that the offending vehicle was coming on the main road while the motorcycle was coming from the side road. He stated that he had seen the accident happening.

8. On the other hand, the appellant examined himself as R1W1. In his statement, he deposed that on 26.06.2006, the police had reached his home to inquire about the accident. He told the police that he had sold the vehicle to a dealer. He stated that the police had reached his house on the basis of his voter ID Card and the sale letter which was lying in the offending vehicle. He stated that at the time of the alleged accident, he was not the owner of the offending vehicle. He further stated that as per DD No. 10A, the accident took place on 26.06.2006 between the motorcycle and a dumper, and that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He denied the suggestion that he was the owner of the offending vehicle even on the date of the accident, however, admitted that he had not filed any transfer document with regard to the said vehicle.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal by its impugned Award held that the fact of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle and the respondent no.1 as the driver of the offending vehicle has been proved.

10. The appellant challenges the above findings of the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that DD No. 10A, which was recorded on the report of PW-6 Head Constable Chandu Lal (Retd.), reported the accident having taken place between the motorcycle and a dumper. He submits that, in fact, by the order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwa