Paras Ram Dhruv and Another vs Smt. Mantora Bai and Others

I.M. Quddusi, J.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned award dated 19.11.2004 passed by the II Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 11/2003 whereby the Tribunal has imposed the liability of payment of compensation on the appellants whereas the case of the applicants before the Tribunal was that non- applicant No. 2 i.e., Khulu Ram Dewangan was the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident.

The brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimants are that on 07.01.2003 at about 9.30 a.m., Janakram Dhruv and deceased Bhikham were going by their cycles from the house of Sukhram Nirmalkar for purchasing the Gutka. At that time Tractor old No. 4687, new No. C.G. 04-D/2346 and Trolly Chassis No. A.E. 0266 Trolly No. C.P.L. 6237 which was being driven by non-applicant No. 1 Paras Ram Dhruv rashly and negligently and was coming towards village Surkhi from Bhatapara dashed Bikham Dhruv in front of house of Durdeshi Yadav on Bhatapara-Mopka road as a result of which Bhikham Dhruv sustained serious injuries and he died on the spot. The claimants made claim to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs on different heads. The Claims Tribunal after hearing the counsel for the parties and having considered the material on record awarded the total compensation of Rs. 3,39,564/- which the claimants are entitled to receive from respondent No. 2.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records of the Tribunal.

In para -2 of the claim petition, it has been mentioned that the Tractor Engine Chassis old No. N.V 468, New No. C.G. 04/ D-2346 and Trolly Chasis No. A.E. 266 and Trolly No. C.P. L. 6237 were under the ownership of non-applicant No. 2 namely Khulu Ram Dewangan.

Before this Court also the plea of the appellants is that at the time when the accident took place, the vehicle was not registered in the name of the appellant rather it was already registered in the name of non-applicant No. 2 i.e., Khullu Ram. The document shows that the registering authority R.T.O., Raipur (C.G) has registered the vehicle in question in the name of Khullu Ram Dewangan on 08.01.2003 whereas the accident took place on 07.01.2003. However, in our opinion, it is not necessary that the person should be a registered owner. Once the Tractor was purchased from the dealer, it was the duty of the purchaser to get the registration of the same if the same is not registered and the purchaser cannot escape from his liability. The invoice dated 13.01.2003 shows that the Tractor was delivered on 13.01.2003 by Arun Trade Combines, Raipur to Khulu Ram Dewangan, son of Ramgulam Dewangan and purchaser Khulu Ram Dewangan has made his signature on the receipt which is as under:

Received the above goods viz., Tractor/ Trailor/Tyres & Tubes & Agricultural implements in brand new and good condition. Took trial and I am entirely satisfied with material function and quality and hence request to make the payment of the bill hence my consent.

Sd/ - Khuluram Dewangan Signature of the customer

This document has been filed by the learned counsel for non-applicants 1 & 2 themselves. In view of the above, it is clear that the delivery of the Tractor in question was taken by appellant Khulu Ram Dewangan on 13.01.2003. Therefore, it is matter of surprise as to how the Tractor was registered prior to the taking over/delivery in the name of Khulu Ram Dewangan on 08.01.2003. Hence, the said dealer was a necessary party in the claim petition and he should have been impleaded as party/non-applicant by the Tribunal itself as in section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it has been provided that on receipt of an application for compensation made u/s 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim. Therefore, these documents create doubt and necessary enquiry is liable to be conducted by the Tribunal concerned to ascertain the fact.

In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal concerned which shall restore the claim petition to its original number. The dealer Arun Trade Combines, Regd. Office No. H. 43, Mana Road, Devpuri, Raipur (C.G) who was authorized to sell Mahindra & Mahindra Tractors shall be impleaded as party/ non-applicant. The parties shall be allowed to adduce the evidence, file documents or verify the documents and amend pleadings etc., and the claim petition shall be decided afresh as expeditiously as possibly. The records of the Tribunal shall be sent back to the Tribunal concerned forthwith.

The amount which has been deposited shall not be allowed to be withdrawn and if the amount or portion of it has not been disbursed so far, the same shall not be disbursed till the disposal of the claim petition. The parties who are represented here may appear before the Tribunal on 22nd November, 2010.

C.C. as per rules.