The court upheld the legitimacy of the surrender of the vehicle and the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and rejected the claim of collusion between the investigation officer and the individual who surrendered the vehicle.

1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16/07/2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District Jaipur, who has rejected the application of the petitioner-National Insurance Company Limited to summon the investigation officer.

2. The argument advanced by the petitioner is that vehicle though has been surrendered by Farman Ali claiming to be its owner and notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has also been issued by the investigation officer but it was done with the collusion of the investigation officer to show involvement of the insurer of the vehicle, whereas in fact, some other vehicle appears to have been involved. The Power of Attorney Ann.3 is said to be executed by Jagdish Prasad Sharma in favour of Farman Ali on 2/4/2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that owner Jagdish Prasad Sharma - respondent No.7 in fact handed over the vehicle to Farman Ali - respondent No.6 on 9/5/2010. Farman Ali handed over the vehicle in the police station on 27/5/2010. The first information report was lodged with the delay of two days therefore investigation officer should have been called in evidence.

3. Admittedly, the vehicle was surrendered by Farman Ali to the police. The police has served the notice u/S.133 of the Act of 1988 to him because he also claimed to have purchased the vehicle from Jagdish Prasad Sharma. The Power of Attorney has emanated from Farman Ali. What is the effect of the registration certificate not being transferred in the name of Farman Ali will be seen by the learned Tribunal. In practice, such transactions are common where sale, purchase and transfer of the vehicle are made on the basis of power of attorney or agreement to sale and transfer of the registration certificate of the vehicle is made later. The investigation officer has in fact filed charge-sheet against Farman Ali for offence u/Ss.279 and 304A IPC. He cannot therefore be said to be in collusion with Farman Ali. Stand taken by Jagdish Prasad Sharma that he never sold the vehicle to Farman Ali and that power of attorney and other documents produced by him are forged, cannot be believed because he is not consistent with his conduct. If at all he maintained that the documents were forged, what action has he taken and why he has not lodged the first information report against Farman Ali, has not been explained. Besides, it is also cannot be believed because not only these documents emanated from the possession of Farman Ali but the vehicle was also surrendered by Farman Ali to the police.

4. I do find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed.

*******