N.N.MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the claimant in a motor accident claim case who, having failed in the court below has come up for redress in this Court.
(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the parties on 15.9.71 the deceased along with Nand Kishore P.W. 1 started from Jalesar on Motorcycle No. UPT 1614 for Agra. The motorcycle was being driven by the deceased and Nand Kishore was seated on the pillion. When they approached to village Naharpur on the main road truck No. UPT 564 was going ahead which he overtook after the truck-driver had duly given side to him. As soon as the motorcycle had overtaken the truck he saw a cyclist coming from the opposite direction due to which the motorcyclist fumbled and fell down throwing away the pillion rider on the left side beyond the road while the driver himself fell down on the road. The truck which at that time was about 15 to 20 paces behind came rushing and curshed the skull of the motorcyclist who had been lying on the road. The truck still went ahead and only when some persons in the truck and some from outside cried out did the truck driver stop the vehicle. A claim for Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation on account of the death of the motorcyclist was preferred under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver of the truck Munna was earlier prosecuted under Section 304-A I.P.C. but seems to have been acquitted. The defence taken by the truck-owner was that on the relevant date he had ceased to be the owner of the truck having transferred the same to Onkar Singh, a few days before the accident, he also pleaded that at the relevant time Munney Khan was not in his employment and, therefore, he was not liable for payment of any compensation. It was, however, admitted in his written statement that Munney Khan was driving the truck at the time of accident. It was also pleaded that the truck stood insured on 15.9.1971 with respondent No. 4 which has since been amalgamated with New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kanpur. According to him no accident had taken place involving the motorcycle and the truck and only a collision between the cyclist and the motorcyclist had taken place in which neither the truck driver was at all involved nor was he guilty of any negligence. The truck being on its proper side and being at a low speed no negligence could be attributed to the driver. Lastly, it was pleaded that the deceased himself was negligent and responsible for his death as he was a minor and was driving the motorcycle without licence.
(3.) THE alleged transferee, Onkar Singh filed a seperate written statement almost on the same lines as those taken by respondent No. 1 but in addition, he too denied ownership of the truck on the day when the accident took place.;