THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI M.A.C.M.A. No. 1263 OF 2011 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY Heard Mr. C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.V.S.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr.Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. Perused the entire record.

2. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 04.05.2011 in M.V.O.P.No. 178 of 2008 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), 3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal had quantified the compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The liability to pay the said compensation was fastened jointly and severally upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4. Respondent No.1 (appellant herein) before the Tribunal was registered owner of Maruti Zen Car bearing No. AP 10 L 5666 and respondent No. 2 is said to be the person to whom respondent No.1 meanwhile sold the said vehicle. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Act is filed by the registration owner assailing the impugned order so far as fastening the liability jointly and severally.

5. The claim filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Act was on the death of the deceased namely Mr.R.Mohan Rao (hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’) who died in an accident that had occurred on 23.04.2008. The accident occurred when the said vehicle was driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner and ran into a group of people at the bus stop including the deceased. In the said accident, the deceased died and other persons received grievous injuries. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 55 years and was working as Professor in Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. The claimants are wife and children of the deceased.

6. It seems that at the time of accident, the said vehicle was not insured. There is no dispute so far as the accident that has occurred and the death of the deceased from the said accident and the other injuries that were caused to other persons. It is also not in dispute so far as involvement of the said vehicle in the said accident. An FIR was lodged at Bowenpally Police Station under Sections 304-A, 337, 279 of IPC and under Section 181 of M.V.Act and charge sheet was also filed in this regard.

7. PW. 2, injured eye-witness, was examined before the Tribunal, who has categorically stated that the said vehicle at the time of the accident was being driven by respondent No. 2. There does not seem to be any strong rebuttal to these admitted factual matrix of the case.

8. The Tribunal taking into consideration the factual aspects and also taking into consideration the method of calculation of compensation as it then has awarded compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum to be payable to the claimants. It is this Award which is under challenge in this appeal by the registered owner.

9. There are two primary contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions. The first is that respondent No. 1 had already sold the said vehicle to respondent No. 2 as early as on

05.02.2008 and also handed over the possession of the said vehicle to respondent No. 2 who was since then the owner. Therefore, since the accident had occurred while respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle, the entire liability ought to have fastened on respondent No. 2 rather than jointly and severally. The second is that to prove that the appellant sold the car to respondent No.2, the appellant produced before the Tribunal two documents i.e., Exs.B.1 and B.2. Ex.B.1 was the delivery note and Ex.B.2 was receipt of advance amount of Rs.35,000/- allegedly paid by respondent No. 2 as against total consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- towards purchase of car.