Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)

Both these appeals are outcome of one motor vehicular accident, thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and award, dated 19.09.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 99G/II-2005, titled as Smt. Pawna Devi and others versus Vijay Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,88,012/with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its finalization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against both the appellants, (for short "the impugned award").

3. The claimants, the driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.

4. The appellants in both the appeals, i.e. registered owner-Vijay Kumar and Kamal Kumar, i.e. the person, who had purchased the offending vehicle in terms of agreement, Mark-A, have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the respective memo of appeals.

5. Precisely, the ground of attack in both the appeals is that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling both the appellants-owners of the offending vehicle with liability.

6. Heard.

7. The claimants, being the victims of the motor vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Balwant Singh, while driving bus, bearing registration No. HP553486, rashly and negligently on 16.09.2005 at about 1.45 P.M., in which the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries, filed claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/, as per the breakups given in the claim petition.

8. The respondents resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.

9. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 30.06.2007:

"1. Whether Bali Ram had died due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HP553486 by respondent No. 2? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR1

4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR1

5. Whether the said vehicle has been insured with respondent No. 3 at the time of accident? OPR1

6. Whether the respondent o. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident? OPR3

7. Relief."

10. Parties have led evidence.

11. There is no dispute about the findings returned by the Tribunal on any of the issues except issue No. 2 so far it relates to saddling both the owners with liability, thus, have attained finality and are accordingly upheld.

12. The bone of contention in both the appeals is whether the registered owner is to be saddled with liability or the person who had purchased the vehicle is to be saddled with liability?

13. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling the registered owner with liability for the following reasons:

14. Vijay Kumar was the registered owner, who had sold the offending vehicle to Kamal Kumar in terms of agreement, dated 02.07.2002 (Mark-A). Moreover, in paras 1 and 3 of the affidavit, dated 29.09.2006 (Ext. RW3/A), which stands duly proved, Kamal Kumar has admitted that he had purchased the vehicle from Vijay Kumar and was responsible for any kind of taxes, challan and claims arising out of the accident.

15. However, Kamal Kumar has taken U-turn by taking a ground in the reply and while appearing in the witness box before the Tribunal that he had not paid the consideration amount to Vijay Kumar, who had taken the possession of the vehicle from him within a period of three months from 02.07.2002, i.e. from the date of entering into the agreement.

16. The said defence of Kamal Kumar is not tenable for the following reason:

17. Kamal