On 30.9.2002 the car bearing No.KET 9386 met with an accident. The 1st respondent in each case who was in the car sustained injuries. The 2nd respondent was the driver. It was alleged that the car belonged to the appellant and there was insurance for the car. The Tribunal found that the 1st respondent's allegation that the accident was due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent was true and the 1st respondent is entitled to compensation. It also entered a finding that though there was insurance for the car, it was an Act only policy, and that the 1st respondent was gratuitous passenger and so the 3rd respondent insurer was not liable to pay the amount. The 4th respondent was the registered owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal directed the appellant who was the real owner to pay the amount. He challenges the award against him on various grounds. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
3. The first ground urged in the appeal memorandum is that the finding of the Tribunal is not supported by pleadings or evidence.
This is only a general statement.
4. The second ground is that the Tribunal has not stated why the appellant was held liable to pay the compensation. It is specifically stated that there is no finding that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent was his driver. This cannot be accepted. In the written statement the appellant did not deny his ownership of the vehicle or that the 2nd respondent was his driver. An admitted fact need not be proved. Another ground is that there is no finding that there was negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. It is true that no specific finding has been entered by the Tribunal to that effect, but it is implied. The 1st respondent adduced evidence to prove negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. Exts A1 and A2 are certified copies of the FIR and the FIS respectively. In the absence of any evidence to disprove the allegations in the above two documents, the only possible conclusion is that the accident was due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent.
5. Yet another ground is that the 2nd respondent was a close acquaintance of the appellant and the 2nd respondent took the vehicle for his own use and he allowed the 1st respondent in each case to travel in it. This is not at all ground worthy of notice to deny the 1st respondent compensation for the injuries sustained by him/her.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter may be remanded so that he might adduce evidence to prove that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time and no accident as alleged in the petition took place. The request cannot be granted for the simple reason that in his written statement he did not deny his ownership of the vehicle and the occurrence of the accident. He cannot be allowed to withdraw the admissions made in his pleadings.
7. The 4th respondent was the registered owner of the vehicle and the policy for the relevant period stood in her name. But the appellant was the real owner. As held by the Supreme Court in P.P.Mohmed Vs K.Rajappan (2008) 17 SCC 624) the real owner also is liable.
8. I do not find any reason to admit the appeals.
In the result, these appeals are dismissed.
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE pm