JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against a judgment and award of Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Gorakhpur dated May the 31st, 2017 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 145 of 2012, ordering the appellant to pay compensation to the claimant-respondent No. 1 for a fatal motor accident.

2. The moot question involved in this appeal is:

Whether the owner of a motor vehicle, who hands it over for repairs to a mechanic, would be liable in damages to a third party sustaining injury on account of use of the motor vehicle by the mechanic in a public place, for the purpose of carrying out repairs?

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these:

Indra Kumar Gupta @ Kumbhe was proceeding on his bicycle on 13.02.2012 to Khalilabad. As he reached near a pond, located ahead of the Beni Madhav Inter College, within the local limits of P.S. Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon hours, the rider of motorcycle, bearing Registration No. UP-58D-4362, riding his motorcycle, at a high sped and negligently, appeared and without sounding a horn, hit the bicycle that Gupta was riding. In consequence of the impact, Gupta sustained grievous injuries. He was being conveyed for the purpose of medical aid to a hospital in Khalilabad, but died on way. These are the assertions in the claim petition instituted by Gupta’s wife, Smt. Badami Devi. Badami Devi is the sole claimant arrayed in the claim petition and the respondent to this appeal. She will hereinafter be referred to as the claimant.

4. It is the claimant’s case that though the loss caused by the untimely demise of her husband cannot be compensated in money, but still she is entitled to compensation. The deceased is said to have been earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- a month, which he expended on his family. The claimant also asserts that his untimely demise has deprived her of his company. Accordingly, the claimant has demanded in compensation a sum of Rs. 18,21,000/- as per details set forth in Column No. 22 of the claim petition.

5. The owner of the offending motorcycle is one Ram Chandra Sahani, arrayed as opposite party No. 1 to the claim petition. He is the second respondent to this appeal. He will hereinafter be called the owner. The owner put in a written statement denying the averments in the claim petition generally. In the additional pleas, he has denied the accident involving his motorcycle on the date, time and place alleged. According to the owner, he had entrusted the offending motorcycle prior to the accident to one Ajeet Rajbhar for the purpose of service. Ajeet Rajbhar, without the permission of the owner, was operating the motorcycle, when he caused the accident. The owner had no knowledge of the accident until after the lapse of a week. It is the owner’s case that since Ajeet Rajbhar (for short, ‘the mechanic’) was operating the motorcycle without the owner’s consent, it is he, who has to bear the burden of satisfying the compensation awarded, in case the Tribunal is of opinion that it is the offending motorcycle that was involved in the accident.

6. The mechanic, who was arrayed as opposite party No. 2 to the claim petition and is the appellant here, put in his separate written statement dated 13.04.2016. He generally denied the allegations in the claim petition. In the additional pleas, it is his case that on 03.02.2012 or at any other date, he was not riding the offending vehicle, but at the time when the accident is said to have happened, he held a valid and effective driving licence, bearing No. A294715KN/05. The said driving licence was issued to him on 07.07.2005 by the Transport Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar. No accident happened on 13.02.2012, because of the mechanic, rashly and negligently riding the offending motorcycle. The claimant merely for the purpose of seeking compensation has come up with thi