Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

53. Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that liability to pay compensation would rest upon respondents No.1,2 & 5. He argued that respondent No.5 had not signed any document at the time of alleged transfer/sale of vehicle to respondent No.6 nor had taken steps for summoning respondent No.6 which showed that respondent No.6 was not existing person.

54. Adverting back to the processes issued by this Tribunal to respondent No.6 to be served through Process Server and Registered Post, the reports of various dates, not only of Process Server but also of postal employees reflect that respondent No.6 was residing at the given address few years ago as a tenant and had shifted to place unknown. Per se, it cannot be said that respondent No.6 was non-existing person in absence of any evidence to the contrary. On that count submissions of Ld. Counsel for petitioner do not hold water. Fact remains respondent No.6 was served by publication and is exparte. None for respondent No.6 came forward to bring on record and prove any fact contrary to fact proved by respondent No.5 of having delivered the possession of the vehicle on 23/07/99 to respondent No.6 vide delivery receipt, Ex. PW5/A. Admittedly, respondent No.5 was neither the registered owner of the vehicle in question nor was in possession of the vehicle as on the date of accident.