Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present Misc. Appeals have been filed by the appellants namely, Sudhir Kewaliya and Trilok Chand, who were the non -applicants before the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner in Claim Case No. 111/1994 "Nirmala Devi Wd/o Indra Puri & Ors. Vs. Trilok Chand, Rajendra Kumar Mittal and Sudhir Kewaliya" being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.07.2001 of learned Judge, MACT, Bikaner in the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by which, the learned Judge held the non -applicant No. 1, Trilok Chand and the non -applicant No. 3 -Sudhir Kewalia to be liable to satisfy the award in question for the sum of Rs. 15,87,245/ - for the accidental death of Indra Puri when he was going on scooter (No. R.N.E. 9618) to his house towards Udasar on Sagar Road, Bank Training Centre, in front of Shiv Mandir situated at National Highway, Bikaner his scooter collided with the Yezdi motorcycle (No. R.J.F. 8232), an uninsured vehicle, driven by the non -applicant No. 1 -Trilok Chand and on account of the head injuries suffered, the said Indra Puri, aged 42 years, died. He was an employee of the Bank. The motorcycle in question was not insured on the date of accident, i.e., on 07.06.1994 and 08.06.1994 mid -night, therefore, the insurance company was neither arrayed as a non -applicant nor there was any question of any insurance company paying the compensation.
(2.) THE claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Indra Puri, viz., his widow Nirmala Devi & Ors. claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 27,36,892/ - and after leading of the evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,87,245/ - to be paid jointly and severally by the non -applicants Nos. 1 (Trilok Chand) and 3 (Sudhir Kewalia) with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition @ 9% per annum. The learned Tribunal, however, exonerated the non -applicant No. 2 - Rajendra Kumar Mittal, the registered owner of the said motorcycle bearing registration number R.J.F. 8232, while holding that the driver of the said motorcycle, the non -applicant No. 1 Trilok Chand and the non -applicant No. 2A Sudhir Kewalia, were jointly and severally liable to satisfy the said award. The learned counsels for the appellants Mr. L.R. Mehta and Mr. D.S. Rajvi submitted that the definition of the 'owner' as given in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the registered owner of the offending motorcycle in question could not have been exonerated from the liability to satisfy the award in question even though under civil law he claimed such exoneration, as he claims that he had sold the motorcycle before the date of accident. It is noticed that the said registered owner of the offending motorcycle namely, the non -applicant No. 2 -Rajendra Kumar Mittal executed a sale letter dated 24.11.1987 (Ex. NA -6) for the said motorcycle in favour of non -applicant No. 2 -A Mr. Sudhir Kewaliya and later on again a separate sale letter dated 15.04.1994 recovered from the said motorcycle, the said sale letter of the motorcycle was in favour of non -applicant No. 1 Triok Chand, who was driving the said offending motorcycle at the time of accident in question on 07.06.1994 mid night hours.
(3.) THE learned counsels for the appellants Mr. L.R. Mehta and Mr. D.S. Rajvi relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpa @ Leela & Ors. Vs. Shakuntala & Ors. reported in : 2011 R.A.R. 65 (SC) and submitted that firstly, the vehicle in question was being driven by the non -applicant No. 1 Trilok Chand at the time of accident and the document NA -1, a copy of the sale letter executed by Rajendra Kumar Mittal on 15.04.1994 was in favour of Trilok Chand himself and, therefore, the appellant Sudhir Kewaliya has wrongly been held liable to satisfy the award in question. The learned counsels also drew the attention of the Court towards the documents, NA -6 dated 24.11.1987 and NA -1 dated 15.04.1994, the two sale letters purportedly one in favour of Sudhir Kewaliya and another in favour of Trilok Chand. In one of the Sale Letter, i.e., NA -6, there is an endorsement on the back of it as well as the same has been registered by the Notary Public on 24.11.1987 whereas, in the second document, i.e., NA -1 dated 15.04.1994, no such endorsement is there.;