Judgment

Ms. Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the Registered Owner of Car bearing registration no.PB-04-L-2544 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) assailing the Award dated 4.12.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby compensation of Rs.45,20,776/- has been granted to the claimants/respondents 1 to 4 herein, in a petition u/s 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT ,1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. Ld. Tribunal on appraisal of facts, pleadings and evidence concluded that the deceased-Gurpreet Singh had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 1.5.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by respondent no.5. Appellant is registered owner of the offending vehicle, while respondent no.6 is the alleged purchaser of the same. Ld. Tribunal held appellant along with respondent no.5 herein/driver of the offending vehicle, liable to pay the compensation as above, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

3. Ld. counsel for the appellant assails the Award on the ground that the Ld. Tribunal is in grave error in fastening joint and several liability on the appellant/respondent no.2 in the claim petition, and respondent no.5/respondent no.1 in claim petition-driver of the offending vehicle as, it had been established on record that the appellant had sold the offending vehicle to respondent no.6 herein. It is submitted that the appellant had led voluminous evidence before the ld. Tribunal to prove that he had sold the offending vehicle to respondent no.6 however, the said evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Ld. counsel refers to the Lower Court Record, in particular to Ex. R1 which is ITR of the appellant for the assessment year 2011-12/Financial Year 2010-11; Ex. R2 account ledger of the appellant firm from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011; and Ex.R3 delivery receipt dated 12.10.2010, to submit that from the said documents it is borne out that the appellant had sold the offending vehicle to respondent no.6 (respondent no.3 in the claim petition) for a sale consideration of Rs.90,000/-. It is submitted that a perusal of Ex.R3 shows that said car/offending vehicle was even delivered to respondent no.6 on 12.10.2010 itself. It is submitted that accordingly, appellant had no concern with the offending vehicle after 12.10.2010 as they were neither owner, nor in possession, of the said car on the alleged date of accident i.e. on 1.5.2012.

4. It is submitted that the above said evidence of the appellant remained uncontroverted and un-rebutted yet ld. Tribunal has fastened the liability on the appellant merely on the ground that the appellant was registered owner of the offending vehicle.

5. It is further submitted that subsequent purchaser of the offending vehicle-respondent no.6 herein was duly impleaded as respondent no.3 by the ld. Tribunal vide order dated 13.9.2013. It is stated that despite service, respondent no.6 did not care to contest the petition and was accordingly, proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.10.2013. It is submitted that therefore, the plea of the appellant that the ownership and possession of the offending vehicle had been delivered to respondent o.6 remained uncontroverted and without denial. It is submitted that therefore, adverse inference is to be drawn against respondent no.6/subsequent purchaser with regard to the transfer of vehicle and he should have been held liable in respect of payment. In support, ld. counsel for the appellant relies upon judgment of this Court in JS Choudhary, Proprietor of Ambala Finlease Crops v Ritu Devi , Vol. CLXII-(2011-12) 397, in particular on Paras 2, 3 and 4 thereof, which read as under:-

“2. The procedure set out under Section 50 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT for transfer of ownership is only evidence of ownership and not at all ti