Abdul Azeez vs Thazhathepurayil Shahul Hameed, Suresan. T.P., V.T. Santhi and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The appellant is the supplemental respondent No. 4 in O.P. (MV) No. 1134 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. The appellant has come up in appeal aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal allowing the third respondent Insurance Company in the O.P. to realise the award amount from the appellant finding that the appellant was having control over the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant. The impugned award was also perused.

The accident was on 13.6.1996. Ext. A10 is the registration certificate which stood in the name of the third respondent. Ext. A8 is the Insurance Certificate which stood in the name of the third respondent for the period ranging from 14.11.1995 to 13.11.1996. The Learned Counsel for the appellant relying on Ext. B4 which is the extract of the R.C. particulars would contend that the same would go to show that the vehicle was transferred in the name of one Mohammed with effect from 14.4.1996. A copy of Ext.B4 was made available before us for perusal during the course of the argument. We notice that mutation has effected in the name of one Mohammed with effect from 14.4.1996. As already stated, the accident was on 13.6.1996. On the basis of the mutation effected in the name of Mohammed in Ext.B4, the Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that on the date of the accident it was the third respondent owner having control over the vehicle. The learned Tribunal relied on Ext.B3 which is the copy of the agreement under which the vehicle had been transferred by the third respondent to the appellant herein. The third respondent was examined before the Tribunal as RW1. He stated that under the original of Ext.B3 he gave possession of the vehicle to the appellant on 20.10.1994. No contra evidence was adduced by the appellant. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the oral evidence as well as Ext.B3 agreement found that it was the appellant who was having control over the vehicle at the time of the accident. That means on the date of the accident, the driver of the vehicle was acting as per the instructions of the appellant and the appellant is vicariously liable for the tortious act committed by the driver. We see no infirmity in the finding entered into by the Tribunal. The appellant has not chosen to enter the witness box and adduce any contra evidence. As there is convincing evidence to show that it was the appellant who was having control over the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the direction of the Tribunal giving liberty to the respondent Insurance Company to recover the compensation from the appellant after paying the same to the claimant is legally justifiable and we do not see any reason to interfere with the same.

In the result, we dismiss the appeal, but without any order as to cost.