S. No.142 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

FAO No.120 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:19.01.2026 Chait Singh .....Appellant Vs.

Bimla Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal is directed against the award dated 24.10.2025 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind vide which a sum of Rs.16,29,288/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants and respondents No.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner respectively have been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material placed on record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was the owner of the offending vehicle in question but he had already sold the same to Surjit Ram who was impleaded as respondent No.3 before the Tribunal and since the vehicle had already been sold away prior to the date of accident, it is respondent No.3 (now impleaded as respondent No.4) who is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and he prayed that the award be modified to that extent.

4. Before proceeding further, relevant findings of the Tribunal with regard to issue of liability are reproduced as under:-

27. Now with regard to issue of liability, it must be noted that death of Paramjit was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. Respondent No.1 was having a valid DL Ex.P9 on the date of alleged accident.

To disprove liability, respondent no.3 Surjeet Ram examined himself as RW-1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RW1/A reiterating the contents of written statement. He stated that the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR23E-2577 was sold by him to Dev Gorha son of Kala Ram, resident of village Meond Bhoganwali, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad vide affidavit. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is not the registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR23E-2577 nor he purchased the same.

Chait Singh son of Nand Singh, respondent no.2, was examined as RW-2. He tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RW2/A reiterating the contents of written statement. He stated that the answering respondent was neither owner of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR23E-2577 nor the same was in his possession on alleged date of accident i.e. 17.12.2022. The answering respondent no.2 sold the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR23E-2577 on 07.06.2018 to Surjeet Ram and handed over the actual physical possession of the said vehicle on the same day after taking its sale consideration. Surjeet Ram also executed an affidavit to this effect duly attested by Shri Rajender Singh, Notary Public, Jakhal on 07.06.2018. The answering respondent also handed over the affidavit form no.28, 29, 30 and other documents of the vehicle, which were received by purchaser/respondent no.3. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is an illiterate and he does not know that what is written in affidavit Ex.RW2/A. He never visited Tohana for transfer his motorcycle. He had sold the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR23E-2577 to Surjeet. RTA Tohana never took his any photograph regarding sale of his motorcycle. Rajender Singh, Notary Public, was examined as RW-3. He brought summoned record i.e. affidavit of Surjit Ram and Chet Singh regarding sale of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR23E-2577. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know the parties personally. He did not see the RC of vehicle at the time of attesting the affidavit of sale. He did not know who was the owner of the vehicle. On basis of above evidence, affidavit regarding sale and purchase has no value in the eyes of law. Hence, there is no liability of respondent no.3 Surjit Ram. However, respondent no.2 is the registered owner of offending Motorcycle bearing registration No.H