G.P. Mittal, J.@mdashThe Appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Vimal Jain impugn a judgment dated 22.11.2010 whereby the First Respondent was granted the right to recover the compensation from Vimal Jain, the predecessor in interest of the Appellants as also from Respondents No.2 and 3 herein. Before adverting to the facts of the instant dispute between the parties, let me first recapitulate as to how the order dated 22.11.2010 came to be passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal). A Claim Petition (CS No.16/06/05 was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Surender Ram. The vehicle was found to be not insured. A compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- was awarded in favour of the Claimants (the Petitioners) in the above mentioned Claim Petition and against the Respondents No.1 and 2 herein. MAC APP No.226/2008 was filed by the First Respondent disputing his liability to pay the compensation on the ground that he had already transferred the vehicle in favour of Vimal Jain, the predecessor of the present Appellants on 09.09.2005. During hearing of the Appeal, it was also brought on record that said Vimal Jain had also transferred the offending vehicle in favour of Harish Kumar (Respondent No.3 herein) on 27.09.2005 i.e. before the date of the accident which occurred on 11.10.2005. This Court by an order dated 22.02.2009 while deciding the aforesaid Appeal held that the First Respondent would pay the compensation to the Claimants i.e. the Respondents No.1 to 4 in the said Appeal and the Claims Tribunal shall adjudicate the recovery rights against the subsequent owner and the driver i.e. the predecessor of the Appellants and the Respondents No.2 and 3 herein. The question of liability was decided by the Claims Tribunal by an order dated 22.11.2010 which is the subject matter of the instant Appeal.
2. In the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, the First Respondent filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and proved the statements of the subsequent purchasers i.e. R2W3 Vimal Prakash Jain Ex.PW1/2 and of R2W4 Harish Kumar as Ex.PW1/4. The rightful owner who was in possession of the vehicle on the date of the accident i.e. the Respondent No.3 did not contest the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. It was proved on record, rather it was not disputed by the subsequent purchasers that Vimal Prakash Jain did purchase the offending vehicle on 09.09.2005 and then sold it to Harish Kumar, the Respondent No.3 herein on 27.09.2005. It was also proved that the Respondent No.2 Deepak obtained the possession of the offending vehicle DL1-SK-7533 on 11.10.2005 from the Respondent No.3. Thus, Vimal Prakash Jain @ Vimal Jain, the predecessor in interest of the Appellant was neither the registered owner nor the rightful owner on the date of the accident. He had no liability to refund the compensation paid by the Respondent No.1 herein. Rather, it is the liability of the rightful owner i.e. the Respondent No.3 and the driver, the Respondent No.2. The Claims Tribunal fell into error in fastening the liability on the predecessor of the Appellants herein in addition to the Respondents No.2 and 3. Thus, the Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the recovery rights granted to the Respondent No.1 shall be confined to the Respondents No.2 and 3 only.
3. The Appeal is allowed in above terms. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the Appellants.
