Patna High Court - Orders
Mukesh Yadav vs Umesh Yadav & Ors on 20 May, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MA No.23 of 2007
MUKESH YADAV
Versus
UMESH YADAV & ORS
-----------
10 20.5.2010Heard the learned counsel Sri Abdul Mannan on behalf of the appellant Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar, and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 11.9.2006 passed by the District Judge- cum- Chairman, Accident Claims Tribunal, Khagaria, in Claim Case No.07/2005 whereby the learned Tribunal directed the appellant to pay interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants under section 140 of the M.V.Act. The claimants who the heirs of the deceased Tara Devi filed the aforesaid claim case alleging that while Tara Devi was going to Flour Mill a new Sonalica Tractor belonging to Mukesh Kumar dashed her as a result of which she died. In the said claim case an application under section 140 M.V.Act was filed.
After hearing the parties the learned Tribunal by the impugned order directed the appellant to pay interim compensation.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that originally in the claim case the appellant was not made party but by subsequent amendment it is mentioned that the appellant is the owner of the new Sonalica Tractor. The learned counsel further submitted that, in fact, that the appellant is not the owner of the Tractor rather the O.P. no.2, Arun Yadav who was named in the F.I.R. is the owner and he was driving the tractor at the time of the 2 alleged occurrence. The learned Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay the interim compensation.
According to the learned counsel because the tractor was used by Arun Yadav at the time of the occurrence, therefore, the appellant is not at all liable to pay the interim compensation. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon two decisions: (l) II (1997) ACJ 142 (FB) ( Ram Narayan Singh vrs. Election Commission & ors.) and (2) 1998 (1) A.C.Com. 88 (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vrs. Kailash Nath Kothari and others).
From perusal of the decision as reported in 1997 ACJ (supra) it appears that in that case the Jeep of the owner was requisitioned and was seized by the Election Department and was being used by the Government. In such circumstance the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Court held that at the time of accident the vehicle was on government duty. At the relevant time for the purpose of the user and liability the owner of the vehicle was the State Government. Liability of the Insurance Company must be deemed to have been thrown on the State Government.
The learned counsel placed paragraph 10 and submitted that at paragraph 10 of written statement he has stated that he is not the real owner rather Arun Yadav is the real owner. So far this question is concerned it is a matter to be established by adducing evidence. At this stage while deciding an application under section 140 of M.V.Act the Tribunal is not required to adopt full fledged 3 procedure as is adopted while deciding an application under section 166 of the M.V. Act.
The next decision, i.e., Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the meaning of owner in the facts and circumstances of that case. It appears that there was a dispute as to who is the owner of the vehic- le because the Bus No.RSB 3945, besides some other buses, was hired by the RSRTC from its owner and to ply on the routes specified by the R.S.R.T.C.In such circumstance the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that to confine the meaning of owner to the registered owner only would in a case where the vehicle is in the actual possession and control of the hirer is not proper for the purpose of fastening of the liability in case of an accident. Therefore, considering the facts that the buses were requisitioned by the Transport authority for the purpose of plying on different routes specified by the said authorities, the Hon'ble Supreme held that for the purpose of fastening liability the Corporation is the owner.
In view of my above discussion I find that the decisions cited by the appellant are not helpful to him.
So far the fact alleged by the appellant that he was not the owner of the new Sonalica Tractor is concerned, if so advised, the appellant may adduce evidence in support of his contention to prove this fact in the trial.
In my opinion at this stage without there being any evidence no finding can be recorded and, thus, the learned court 4 below has rightly passed the impugned order directing the appellant to pay the compensation.
In the result, I find no merit in this appeal.
Accordingly, this Misc. appeal is dismissed.
The statutory amount may be transmitted to the court below for payment to the claimants. The appellant shall deposit the rest Rs.25000/- within two months from today.
AnilKr.Sinha ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. )