- (1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the award dated 28.6.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge, Jaipur City No.9, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 3,86,052/ - to the respondents -claimants no.3 to 5, for the death of Ramkaran.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 09.03.1999, when Ramkaran was going to his field, a Maruti Van, bearing Registration No. RJ -14 C 9784, being driven rashly and negligently came and hit him from the back. Consequently, he suffered grievous injuries; subsequently, he expired. The claimants filed a claim petition. In order to buttress their case, they examined three witnesses, and submitted few documents. On the other hand, the respondents also examined four witnesses. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Moreover, the learned Tribunal held the present appellant and Naim Ahmed (the respondent no.2 before this Court), as severely and jointly liable for payment of compensation amount to the claimants -respondents no.3 to 5. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. N.K. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant had already sold the offending vehicle, namely Maruti Van, on 5.11.1996 to one Moinuddin. At the time of sale of said vehicle they have taken a delivery note from Moinuddin. Subsequently, Moinuddin sold the said vehicle to Naim Ahmed. Thus, on the date of accident i.e. 9.3.1999, the vehicle was under the control of Naim Ahmed. In fact, Om Prakash, the driver was his employee, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the liability to pay the compensation would be on Naim Ahmed and Om Prakash. Hence, the learned Tribunal has erred in imposing the liability upon the appellant. Secondly, the sale of a vehicle is not covered under the Transfer of Property Act, but is covered under the Sales of Goods Act. Once the vehicle was sold by the appellant to Moinuddin, the said vehicle was not under his possession or control. Thus, he cannot be held liable for payment of the compensation amount. In order to buttress his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of M/s. Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Dewalal and Ors. [1977 ACJ 150], and on Guru Govekar vs. Miss Filomena F. Lobo and Ors. [II (1998) ACC 625].
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award and considered the case law cited at the Bar.;