Prakash v. Sarvesh Devi & Ors

O R D E R %

07.11.2024

¶1An Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Registered Owner against the Judgement/Award dated 22.01.2009, whereby the Compensation in the sum of Rs.2,17,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, has been awarded to the Claimant/Injured, Ms. Sarvesh Devi (Respondent No.4 in Claim Petition bearing MAC No.2079/16).

¶2In the Appeal, the assessment of compensation in favor of Respondent No. 4, has not been challenged. It is submitted that the Appellant and Respondent No.4 have arrived at some Settlement and the payments are being made to the Claimant, with the next installment due to be made on

02.12.2024 in the Execution Petition.

¶3The only grievance of the Appellant/Registered Owner is that he had sold the Offending Vehicle to one Mr. Rajpal and Mr. Bijender , who were impleaded as Respondent No.1 and 3 in the Petition MAC No.2079/16. Shri Rajpal and Bijender appeared in the Court and filed their Written Statement, This is a digitally signed order. wherein they had admitted that they had purchased the Offending Vehicle but took the defense that they had sold it to one junk dealer, Braham Dutt/Respondent No.2 in the MAC Petition much prior to the accident, who had been using the vehicle.

¶4The learned Tribunal had noted these averments in the Impugned Award dated 22.01.2019 in Paragraph 17 and considering that no documents whatsoever, about these alleged sales by one actual purchaser to another one were forthcoming, it was observed as under : "Liability: Respondent No. 1 is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and is liable to pay this compensation. Though other respondents have also been impleaded being subsequent owners of the same vehicle, yet no document regarding subsequent transfer of vehicle in their favour has been proved on record. As per the ownership verification of the offending vehicle, vehicle is still registered in the name of respondent No. 1, due to he is liable to pay this compensation. However, he may recover this compensation from subsequent purchasers as per rules, in case he sold out this vehicle to them subsequently."

¶5Admittedly, neither the Appellant nor any of the Respondents have given the date or the documents of alleged Sales. Therefore, the observations of the learned Tribunal that the Appellant may seek recovery on proving the requisite documents, does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶6There is no merit in the Appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

¶7The Appeal is accordingly disposed of along with the pending Application(s), if any.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

NOVEMBER 7, 2024/va This is a digitally signed order.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 470/2019, CM APPL. 18040/2019 PRAKASH .....Appellant Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate. versus SARVESH DEVI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA