- (1.) THE appeal is by the New United Transport Private Limited arrayed as the 4th respondent before the Tribunal as an owner of bus bearing No.PAB 1847 that was said to have been involved in the motor accident. The accident was an admitted fact but the real question was the ownership as regards the vehicle and an examination of whether the particular vehicle which was involved in the accident was having a genuine registration No. PAB 1847.
(2.) THE bus bearing registration No. PAB 1847 was admittedly driven by a person who was arrayed as the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent was said to be the owner of the bus and the 3rd respondent was said to be the manager of the bus. Since it was contended that New United Transport Pvt. Ltd was the registered owner of the bus having the particular registration number, the 4th respondent was also made as party.
(3.) THERE were two lines of defence disclosed; one, by respondent Nos.1 and 3 namely the driver Narinder Singh and the Burj Transport who was stated to be the owner by the claimants that they had no connection at all with the bus bearing registration No.PAB 1847while the 4th respondent/appellant would state that they were really owners of bus No.PAB 1847 but their own vehicle had never at any point of time seized but it was actually plying till the year 1996 when it was condemned and also informed to the RTO Office. The original RC book had been surrendered to the transport authorities. In the course of criminal investigation and in the case against the driver, the driver had given a statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the criminal court admitting that he was the driver of the vehicle and at the relevant time, Burj Transport the 3rd respondent was the owner. But before the Tribunal a defence which was taken by respondent Nos.1 and 3 together was that the vehicle never belonged to them and that it was the 4th respondent/appellant who was the owner. In this case the particular vehicle which was involved in the accident that took place on 08.11.1995 was actually seized by the police and produced before the Criminal Court but kept in the police station for its safe custody. The vehicle which was seized and parked in the police custody was admittedly the vehicle which had been responsible for the accident. The whole question revolves on how a registered owner of the vehicle No. PAB 1847 was making a claim that vehicle bearing registration No. PAB 1847 which was seized and parked in the police station was not the said vehicle and the registration number had been fabricated and used fraudulently by the 3rd respondent Burj Transport when they were themselves the owner of the vehicle having the same registration number and plying on the roads. To vindicate their contentions at the trial that even subsequent to the alleged date of seizure of the vehicle on 08.11.1995 by the police, they were actually plying their own vehicle having the registration No.PAB 1847 and that the vehicle was abandoned later only in the year 1996 was said to be proved by two ways. One, through a letter written to the RTO, Jallandhar to make a verification of the date till when the vehicle was being run and when the RC book was surrendered. The document was filed before the Tribunal as Ex.RX/3 which contained an endorsement that the RC was cancelled and the original surrendered to them on 29.03.1996. The witness from RTA was also summoned who gave evidence as RW3 with reference to the original records brought by her. The witness Balraj Kaur gave evidence in Court to the effect that vehicle No. PAB 1847 had been registered in the name of New United Transport, Amritsar and as per the tax register for the year 1987 -88 it continued till the year 1996 and that subsequently on 25.03.1996, the RC book had been cancelled and that the bus had not plied after the said date and that it was dismantled. The witness also gave evidence to the effect that whenever RC book is cancelled, the original RC is deposited with the office of the DTO and in this case, the RC had been deposited with the DTO, Amritsar and the vehicle could not ply after the cancellation of the RC. In the cross -examination, it was elicited that she had not brought the original RC of vehicle No. PAB 1847.;