- (1.) The appeal by the registered owner is on a point that admittedly on the date of accident he was not the owner and he had transferred the vehicle to the third respondent. The third respondent had actually taken a policy of license in the name of the registered owner without obtaining transfer of registration in his own name. The Insurance Company was made liable but the tribunal also provided for a right of recovery against the registered owner who is the subsequent purchaser and the driver on the ground that the license produced before the tribunal was not valid. The third respondent before the tribunal has filed a cross objection challenging the liability cast on him. I must observe that the procedure adopted is erroneous. He was bound to come on independent appeal for a liability cast on him can not be fended off in an appeal filed by the registered owner, who was a co-respondent before the tribunal. I would not however, let this technical objection come in way for the subsequent purchaser who has a contention to make that the vehicle had been transferred to a person by name Rajesh and the driver was not his driver and he was the driver of the subsequent purchaser Rajesh. The proper procedure in such a case for the Insurance Company before taking a plea that the driver did not have a valid driving license was to ensure that the subsequent purchaser was made as a party. If it did not do so, it had its own reason, for, it was not required to see beyond its own policy and if the insured was a party that was sufficient. Only the subsequent purchaser must have taken steps to implead his own purchaser Rajesh to protect his skin. The claimant had nothing to lose, for the presence of the insurer and the registered owner were sufficient. Under the normal circumstance, I would have proceeded to allow the appeal on admitted terms that the appellant was not the owner at the relevant time and cast liability on the subsequent purchaser-cross objector. Since the issue of subsequent purchase was raised at the time of trial and the document of sale in favour of Rajesh was also produced before the Court below, through Annexure R-1 to R-3, it would only be appropriate that the subsequent purchaser Rajesh is made a party respondent, to assess the issue of whether there had been a transfer of the vehicle to Rajesh as contended by the third respondent, Rajesh is added in the interest of justice as respondent No. 5 in the case suo motu. The genuineness of the transfer through Annexure R-1 to R-3 cannot be examined before this Court. All that it would be required to be done for necessary disposition is to allow the appeal filed by the appellant relieving him of liability on the admitted plea that the vehicle had been transferred by him to the third respondent which is admitted by the latter as well. The cross objection is treated as an independent appeal and it is allowed and remitted before the tribunal for consideration of the issue of liability inter se between the third respondent and his alleged subsequent purchaser. In the eventuality of the Insurance Company proceeding to effect recoveries for the violation of terms of policy, this adjudication does not require the presence of the claimants for the claimants shall be at liberty to enforce the award wholly against the Insurance Company on the disclosed fact that there was valid policy at the time of the accident. Since the recoveries shall be against the actual owner, the present adjudication directed through this judgment would cover the issue of who shall be proceeded against by the insurer. The insurer shall be at liberty to bring its own evidence and participate in the trial for the inter se adjudication between the third respondent and his alleged subsequent purchaser who is now impleaded as the fifth respondent.
(2.) The tribunal shall issue notice to the newly impleaded party before this Court and proceeded to dispose of the case in accordance with law. The third respondent shall be at liberty to prove the documents which he was relying on for alleged transfer of vehicle. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- which is deposited before this Court is ordered to be refunded to the appellant. The amount deposited by the third respondent for cross objection is remitted to the tribunal to be kept in deposit without any disbursal. The ultimate decision by the tribunal fixing the liability or otherwise of the third respondent will determine the issue of disposal as well.
(3.) The appeal and cross objection are allowed and the matter is remitted for consideration in accordance with law to the court below. The parties shall appear before the court below on 30.7.2014.;