@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A.K. Lal, J.@mdashThe opposite party No. 1-appellant has preferred this appeal against judgment and award dated 17.7.2010 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Compensation Claims Tribunal, Saran at Chapra in Claim Case No. 4 of 1997 by which the appellant has been directed to indemnify the award. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the claimants. Opposite party No. 2-respondent 2nd Set has not appeared in spite of service of notice.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant sold the vehicle-Jeep bearing Registration No. BPP-8397 on 11.3.1996 to Mirtunjay Singh @ Raju Singh (respondent No. 7) for a consideration of Rs. 76,000/- and to this effect two sale fetters were executed and two affidavits were sworn separately; one by the appellant and another by the purchaser Mirtunjay Singh @ Raju Singh. These affidavits were sworn on 10.4.1996 before Annul Haque, Advocate Notary Public relating to transfer of the vehicle BPP-8397. A certificate was also given to this effect by the notary. Mirtunjay Singh-respondent No. 7 paid upto date tax on 13.12.1996 and on the basis of forged and collusive papers he got the vehicle released in his favour. In fact, on the same date, the insurance papers were prepared collusively which is apparent from the record of the case with a purpose to avoid liability of paying compensation. Once the vehicle, in question, was sold to respondent No. 7, the possession of the vehicle was also delivered to him much before the date of accident dated 3.12.1996. Therefore, the question of liability to pay the compensation rests upon respondent No. 7 and not upon the appellant. The appellant filed an application dated 13.1.2004 under Section 169(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and also under Order XVI, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. with a prayer to summon the special peon to bring the documents mentioned in the application which was allowed by the Court below, but the documents could not be produced. Thereafter, an application was filed on 25.2.2004 by the appellant for issuance of warrant against Mirtunjay Singh-respondent No. 7 for production of document in the court in respect of vehicle, in question, but the prayer was rejected. In fact, respondent No. 7 had withdrawn all the papers of the vehicle such as tax token, insurance policy, owner book on 10.1.1997 through his lawyer Shailendra Kumar Singh. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly appreciated the evidence and ignored the material evidence which was in favour of the appellant and also failed to consider that after the sale of the vehicle and delivery of possession to the purchaser the appellant has no liability against the vehicle.
3. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that respondent No. 7 Mirtunjay Singh did not appear before the Tribunal, as such vide order dated 16.12.2003 the case was fixed for ex parte hearing against him. The main question before the learned Tribunal was to see as to whether due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Jeep No. BPP-8397, the occurrence took place causing the death of Ram Chander @ Bhuteli, the husband of respondent No. 1 Chanda Kuer, father of minor respondent Nos. 2 to 4, and son of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties in right perspective and has passed the order in accordance with law. He has further submitted that the claim of the appellant is that he transferred the offending vehicle on 11.3.1996 to respondent No. 7, as such he was required to get registration of the vehicle within 14 days of the transferred as provided under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the alleged sale has taken place within the same State.
4. The appellant has adduced 12 witnesses in support of his case, out of whom Dhrub Prasad (D.W. 9), who was the driver of the offending vehicle, has stated that on 3.12.1996 he was the driver of the Jeep No. BPP-8397 and he was driving the vehicle. Ranjeet Singh (appellant) was the owner of the vehicle. After the occurrence he fled away leaving the vehicle. He also got bail from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra. He knows Mirtunjay Singh (respondent No. 7) who purchased the aforesaid Jeep BPP-8397 after the accident. On the date of occurrence all the papers of the vehicle had lost their validity. The insurance policy has already expired. He has not been declared hostile by the appellant; as such his evidence is binding on him. D.W. 9 is an important witness of this occurrence.
5. Learned trial court has considered all the oral as well documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and has rightly held that due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid jeep, the occurrence took place causing the death of the deceased Ramchander @ Bhuteli.
6. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record it appears that the contention of learned counsel for respondents is correct.
7. It appears that the case of the claimants is that on 3.12.1996 at about 9 p.m. Ram Chander @ Bhuteli aged about 35 years was getting the light of his truck repaired. In the meantime, Mahindra International Jeep driven rashly and negligently dashed Ramchander @ Bhuteli causing injury to him who succumbed to the injuries during treatment on 4.12.1996. The claim petition was filed for compensation of Rs. 6,40,000/-. The earning of the deceased was Rs. 5,000/- per month. He was the owner of the truck. The opposite party No. 1-appellant appeared and filed written statement on 20.2.1997 and also supplementary written statement stating therein that he sold his jeep BPP-8397 to opposite party No. 2 Mirtunjay Singh (respondent No. 7) on 11.3.1996 and handed over the possession of the jeep to him. Since he had already sold his vehicle to respondent No. 7, he had no concern with the jeep and as such he had no liability and responsibility against that jeep as such he is not a necessary party in that case. Opposite party No. 2-Mirtunjay Singh did not appear in that case as such the case was heard ex parte against him vide order dated 16.12.2003. The claimants-respondents adduced seven witnesses in support of their case. They have also adduced documentary evidence, inquest report (Ext.-1), FIR-cum-Fardbeyan (Ext.-2), postmortem report (Ext.-3).
8. The opposite party No. 1 -appellant has examined 12 witnesses in support of his case as well as documentary evidence. The learned Tribunal has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties. Out of 12 witnesses, O.P.W. 1 Bhim Singh has stated that Jeep No. BPP 8397 was transferred by Ranjeet Singh to Mirtunjay Singh @ Raju Singh on 11.3.1996 for a consideration of Rs. 76,000/- and handed over the possession of the vehicle and the documents relating thereto. Thereafter, the vehicle was not in possession of Ranjit Singh. On 3.12.1996 the vehicle was driven by Dhrub Prasad, the driver of Mirtunjay Singh. O.P.W. 2 Rajendra Singh has also supported this version of O.P.W. 1. O.P.W. 3 Annul Haque is advocate of notary public. He has stated that Ranjeet Singh (appellant) has sworn an affidavit before him on 10.4.1996. It had been noted in his register. In his cross-examination, he has stated that although there is requirement to get the person swearing affidavit to sign before him on the register, but he has not taken the signature of any one. O.P.W. 4 Suresh Singh has stated that he prepared the surety bond for the release of the vehicle BPP-8397 in favour of Mirtunjay Singh. O.P.W. 5 Prabhat Kumar Verma, O.P.W. 6 Murari Kumar Pathak, O.P.W. 7 Prabhunath Prasad are formal witnesses, who have proved the signature of driver Dhrub Prasad and the signature of Mirtunjay Singh and advocate Baijnath Singh and Shailendra Kumar Singh.
9. P.W. 8 Lalan Kumar Deo, who is the head clerk in the Transport Office, Chapra has stated that the Court had called for the documents produced by Mirtunjay Singh i.e. the sale deed of the vehicle, affidavit and challan. Those documents were searched, but not found. O.P.W. 9 Dhurb Prasad is an important witness as he was the driver of the offending vehicle. He has stated that on 3.12.1996 he was the driver of Jeep No. BPP-8397 and Ranjeet Singh was the owner of the vehicle. He handed over the vehicle to him for plying after the accident. He fled away leaving the vehicle. He has also stated that he knows Mirtunjay Singh (respondent No. 7), who purchased the aforesaid vehicle after the occurrence. All the documents including the insurance of the vehicle had lost their force. He has not supported the case of the appellant but he has not been declared hostile, as such his evidence is binding on the appellant. In view of the evidence of O.P.W. 9, the evidence of O.P.W. 1 Bhim Singh and O.P.W. 2 Rajendra Singh has no significance and the evidence of O.P.W. 1 and O.P.W. 2 has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Tribunal. O.P.W. 10 is also a formal witness.
10. O.P.W. 11 Atal Bihari Singh is the process server. He has stated that he went to serve a notice on Mirtunjay Singh which was received by his father.
11. O.P.W. 12 Ranjit Singh is the appellant of this case. He has stated that on 11.3.1996 he transferred his Jeep BPP-8397 to Mritunjay Singh @ Raju Singh (respondent No. 7) for a consideration of Rs. 76,000/-. The sale deed was prepared in two copies which was written by Sanjay Singh @ Santu Singh, own brother of Mritunjay Singh at his instance (O.P.W. 12) after pasting a ticket of Rs. 1/-. He put his signature, which was witnessed by Manoj Kumar Singh and Umesh Singh. Both of them are dead. He gave one copy of the sale deed to Mirtunjay Singh and second copy was kept by him which had been submitted in the Court by him which is Ext.-J. He has handed over all the documents relating to vehicle to Mirtunjay Singh. After 11.3.1996 he had no concern with the vehicle. He has also stated that he deposited Rs. 80,000/- in Gramin Kshetriya Bank. Rs. 76,000/- of the sale proceed and Rs. 4,000/- from agriculture earning. Entry of the aforesaid amount has been given by cashier of the bank which has been marked as Exts.-K and K/1 is the certificate of the cashier. Till 10.3.1996 the driver of the vehicle was Rajendra Singh. From 11.3.1996 the vehicle was driven by Dhrub Prasad at the instance of Mirtunjay Singh. He has also stated that on 3.12.1996 at the time of accident the owner of the vehicle was Mirtunjay Singh. He has given his statement on affidavit on 10 pages. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to whether at the time of occurrence the vehicle was insured or not and tax had been paid or not. He has also no knowledge as to whether in the District Transport Office his name has been deleted and it has been entered in the name of Mritunjay Singh or not.
12. It appears that the evidence of O.P.W. 9 Dhrub Prasad, the driver of the offending vehicle is convincing as he was the driver at the time of accident and he has stated clearly that he was the driver of Ranjeet Singh, who was the owner of the vehicle, and after the occurrence he fled away leaving the vehicle. The vehicle has been purchased by Mirtunjay Singh (respondent No. 7) after the accident.
13. So far legal aspect concerning the transfer of vehicle is concerned, there is provision under Section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as follows:--
"Transfer of ownership.--(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,--
(a) the transferor shall,--
(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the, fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and
(ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in sub-clause (i)--
(A) the no objection certificate obtained under Section 48; or
(B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,--
(I) the receipt obtained under Sub-section (2) of Section 48; or
(II) the postal acknowledgement received by the transferor if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgement due to the registering authority referred to in Section 48,
together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted:--
(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.
(2) xxxxx
(3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer within the period specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1), as the case may be, or if the person who is required to make an application under sub-section (2) (hereinafter in this section referred to as the other person) fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the transferor or the transferee, or the other person, as the case may be, to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under Section 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under sub-section (5):
Provided that action under Section 177 shall be taken against the transferor or the transferee or the other person, as the case may be, where he fails to pay the said amount.
(4) xxxxx
(5) xxxxx
(6) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1), or an application under sub-section (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration.
(7) A registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the transfer of ownership to the transferor and to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority"
14. The procedure for transfer of ownership has been laid down in Rule 55 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Under this rule also the transferor has been given duty to perform and has to report the fact of transfer in Form 29 to the Registering Authority concerned in whose jurisdiction the transferor and the transferee reside or their places of business.
15. It appears from the record as well as from the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant that he has not given any information to the District Transport Officer regarding the transfer of the vehicle to Mirtunjay Singh (respondent No. 7) as required under Section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act and under Rule 55 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. The appeal has got no merit; it is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.
