J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) Instant appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the non-claimant-appellant assailing award dated 18/08/2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar in Claim Case No. 56/2004 by which compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,42,949/- has been awarded to the claimant-respondent.
(2.) Brief facts noticed are that one Suman Kumar Singh, being a contractor, after finishing his work of contract in M/s. Supreme Cylinder Ltd., Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, while coming out of the factory premises of the said company on 28/08/2003 at about 4.30 PM on his Motorcycle bearing No.HR-36-C-2966, at that time, one Contesa Car, bearing No.DL-3-CJ-4129, whose driver Jagdish Singh was driving it in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant-Suman Kumar Singh as a result of which the claimant-Sunil Kumar Singh got seriously injured and was carried to Hospital in Bhiwadi by Mahendra Yadav and Hosiyar Singh. It is claimed that the claimant was contractor and was earing Rs. 8,000/- per month and at the relevant point of time was aged about 42 years. An FIR was lodged and the claim petition was also filed thereafter. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the material available on record and the injuries suffered as well as the disability certificate, allowed claim to the extent of Rs. 1,42,949/- and directed the same to be recovered from the driver and owner (M/s. Oxide India Enterprises), appellant herein and exonerated the Insurance Company as the vehicle was not insured.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant contended that the claim allowed against the present appellant is unjust and improper and the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse. He contended that there is no evidence about involvement of the appellant at all either in the accident or even ownership of the alleged vehicle Contesa of appellant has not been proved. He further contended that the appellant sold the vehicle to Dalgit Singh long back on 20/05/2003, the entire amount was received, possession was handed over and on the fateful day of 28/08/2003, the appellant was not at all owner of or in any manner connected with the vehicle. Dalgit Singh was owner of the vehicle and was also driving the same. Therefore, fastening the liability on the appellant is unjust. He further contended that Dalgit Singh having purchased the vehicle long back and no evidence has come on record that Dalgit Singh was not owner of the Contesa Car rather he contended that Dalgit Singh himself had stated that he was the owner of the vehicle in his statement and once he himself stated to be owner of the vehicle, the question of treating the appellant as owner of the vehicle is wholly unjustified and contrary to the material on record. He further contended that the finding being totally perverse, requires consideration and deserves to be reversed. In the alternative, he contended that the amount allowed at Rs. 1,42,949/- is highly excessive and abnormal for the disability of about 8.2% and neither the doctor was examined nor medical certificate was reliable.;