MIHIR KUMAR RATH Vs. RABINARAYAN PRUSTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Correctness of the judgment in an appeal under Sec - 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the 'Act') is questioned in this appeal under the Letters Patent.

(2.) THE fact situation as presented by the parties is to the following effect : One Sadasiva Rout (respondent No. 2 herein) represented through his father guardian Harihar Rout filed an application Under Section 110 A of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 95,000/ - for the injuries sustained by him in an accident on 14.5.1979. One Nilakantha Das (respondent No. 3 herein) is the registered owner of the motor -cycle bearing registration No. ORU 2201 which was involved, in the accident. The Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri (in short, the 'Tribunal') on consideration of the claims and the evidence on record carne to hold that one Rabinarayan Prusty (respondent No. 1 herein) was liable to pay the compensation quantified at Rs, 20,000/ -. For fastening the liability, the Tribunal referred to certain documents relating to transfer of the vehicle to Rabinarayan Prusty. One Mihir Kumar Rath (appellant herein) was impleaded in the proceeding before the Tribunal and it was asserted that he was driving the vehicle. The Tribunal was of the view that material on record was not sufficient to establish that the appellant Mihir was the owner of the vehicle and/or he was driving it when the accident occurred.

(3.) MR . Mukherji, the learned counsel for appellant submits that in view of the materials placed before the Tribunal to show transfer of ownership of the vehicle by Nilakantha to Rabinarayan, merely on the basis of the acknowledgement made while taking zima about the ownership of the vehicle, the liability should not have been fastened on appellant Mihir. The learned counsel for 'respondents, howover, asserts that the analysis made by the learned Single Judge is unimpeachable; and there is no infirmity in the judgment to warrant our interference.