The possession and control of the vehicle by the insured, as interpreted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, determined the liability and compensation entitlement.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintained against the impugned award dated 16.8.2012, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, District Una, in MAC Case No.30 of 2010, filed by the appellant/respondent No.3/Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent No.3’) against respondent No.1/petitioner, namely Parkash Chand (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) and respondents No.1 and 2, namely, Khem Chand and Sohan Lal therein (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents No.1 and 2’).

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 31.1.2010 at about 12:30 PM, when petitioner reached near Ghaluwal Petrol Pump in District Una, on his motorcycle bearing No. PH-08BH-3690 from his village on way to Padiana, respondent No.1 driving Tata Safari bearing registration No.HR-40C-0929 (new number HP-72-1760) came from behind and struck against the motorcycle from behind due to the impact of which petitioner fell down on the road alongwith his motorcycle and sustained fracture on his left leg. The petitioner has claimed compensation of rupees five lacs.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 have contested the claim petition. They have raised preliminary objections qua non joinder of necessary parties i.e. owner and driver of motorcycle. On merits, respondent No.1 (Khem Chand) driving the vehicle in a normal speed with care and caution, when he reached near Petrol Pump Ghaluwal, petitioner was going in front of respondent No.1, who suddenly turned his motorcycle towards right side without giving any signal, as a result of which vehicles collided. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by the petitioner. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company has filed reply raising preliminary objections qua cause of action, driver not possessing valid and effective licence, vehicle being plied without Registration Certificate, route permit, fitness certificate in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

4. The learned Court below framed the following issues on 23.3.2011 and 28.5.2012, as under:

1. Whether petitioner Parkash Chand sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR- 40C-0929 by respondent No.1 ? OPP.

1-A Whether vehicle Tata Safari bearing registration No.HR-40C-0929 was subsequently allotted registration No.HP-72-1760 ?

2. If Issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioner entitled to ? OPP.

3. Whether petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e. owner and insurer of motorcycle No.PB- 08BH-3690 ? OPR1 and 2.

4. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question ? OPR3.

5. Whether the vehicle was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy ? OPR3.

6. Whether the vehicle was being plied without valid registration certificate and fitness certificate at the relevant time ? OPR3.

7. Whether petition is filed in collusion with respondent Nos.1 and 2. If so its effect ? OPR-3.

8. Relief.

5. After deciding Issue Nos.1, 1-A and 2 in favour of the petitioner, Issue Nos.3 to 7 against the respondents, the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,60, 172/- to be paid by respondent No.3.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

7. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf the appellant has argued that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as on the day, when the accident took place, respondent No.2, was not owner of the vehicle in question. He has further argued that he became owner of the vehicle afterwards, so the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that the I