IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) FAO-6907-2011 (O&M)

Rajvir Singh @ Rajbir Singh ...Appellant VERSUS Tarsem Chand and others ...Respondents (ii) FAO-6949-2011 (O&M)

Rajvir Singh @ Rajbir Singh ...Appellant VERSUS Tarsem Chand and others ...Respondents Date of Decision: January 28, 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Mr.Saurabh Bahmani, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondents No.1 and 2 ex-parte.

None for respondent No.3. Mr.Karan Singla, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

These are two appeals, filed at the instance of the registered owner of Tata Safari bearing registration No.CH-03S-0821 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) to assail the Award dated 10.09.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby, compensation was granted in two claim petitions, filed by two sets of LRs of Jasvir Singh, who died in a motor vehicular accident.

As per the version of the claimants, the accident had taken place on 07.04.2010, on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver Prince Kumar and the same resulted into death of Jasvir Singh, who was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-12G-

6648, at the relevant time.

Consequently, two different claim petitions were filed; one was filed by Sandeep Kaur i.e. MACT No.78 of 04.08.2010, in which, Gurmeet Kaur and Balihar Singh-parents of the deceased were impleaded as respondents, whereas, the other one i.e. MACT No.91 of 27.08.2010 was filed by Smt.Gurmit Kaur and Balihar Singh, parents of the deceased and therein, Sandeep Kaur, widow of deceased was impleaded as proforma respondent.

So far as, factum and manner of taking place of the accident and death of Jasvir Singh is concerned, the same is not a matter of dispute in the present appeals. However, it is pertinent to mention that appellant Rajvir Singh @ Rajbir Singh, who was impleaded as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, in the capacity of being registered owner of the offending vehicle, in his reply, had raised the specific issue that he had sold the offending vehicle to Tarsem Chand s/o Satpal, by delivery of possession to him, on that very day and about execution of the affidavit. Thereupon, said Tarsem Chand was impleaded in the claim petitions.

However, on appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned Tribunal had assessed the compensation to the extent of Rs.3,99,000/- and awarded compensation to the widow and mother of deceased to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- each and residue amount of Rs.99,000/- to the father of the deceased. Learned Tribunal had concluded that Rajvir Singh @ Rajbir Singh, as per the contents of Mark ‘RX’, copy of the registration certificate, is the registered owner. Since, the offending vehicle is still in the name of Rajvir Singh @ Rajbir Singh, therefore, in the capacity of being registered owner, he cannot escape from the liability. Consequently, the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the driver as well as the registered owner and subsequent owner i.e. Prince Kumar, Rajvir Singh @ Rajbir Singh and Tarsem Chand and therein, liability was held to be joint and several.

Feeling aggrieved by the liability, saddled upon Rajvir Singh @

Rajbir Singh, the registered owner, the present appeals have been filed.

In pursuance of the notice issued, respondents No.1 and 2 i.e.

subsequent owner Tarsem Chand as well as driver Prince Kumar, were proceeded against ex-parte. Even, Sandeep Kaur-respondent No.3, had not made appearance through counsel. Only the parents of the deceased i.e.

respondents No.4 and 5, had made appearance through counsel.

Learned counsel for the parties heard.

At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in fact, much prior to the taking place of the accident, appellant Rajvir Singh @ Rajbir Singh had sold the offending vehicle to Tarsem Chand s/o Satpal on 19.03.2009 by delivery of possession to him. In this regard, learned counsel