Hamsafar Travels v. Bharat Shamrao Gajendragadkar

It is argued by Advocate Shri S.R.Deshpande for the appellant that the appellant was merely an agent who had sold the ticket for and on behalf of the owner of the bus and as such 5 appellant is not liable. Here, reference to Section 231 of the Contract Act would be relevant. Section 231 reads: "231. Right of parties to a contract made by agent not disclosed. If an agent makes a contract with a person who neither knows, nor has reason to suspect, that he is an agent, his principal may require the performance of the contract; but the other contract party has, as against the principal, the same rights as he would have had as against the agent if the agent had been principal."

#06. Advocate Shri S.R.Deshpande submitted before me that Respondent No.2 was absent and the Tribunal ought to have added insurance company as a party. However, there was nothing before the Tribunal to show that the bus was insured. It is also submitted that as per Rule 254 (6) of the Maharashtra Vehicles Rules 1989, police were duty bound to provide information.

#07. It may be noted that in this case proceedings have been decided ex-parte and, therefore, whatever evidence was available on record was sufficient as the same had been unchallenged. 6

#08. At this stage we are concerned with application seeking to set aside exparte award and restoration of the claim petition. In my opinion, this Appeal from Order has no merits, particularly when the appellant has not prima facie proved that not he, but some other person was owner of the vehicle in question. The fact remains that Respondent was traveling in bus which he believed to be owned by Hamsafar Travels. The applicant/appellant has admitted ownership of traveling agency Hamsafar Travels. Summons of the original claim petition was duly served on him as observed by the learned Member of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, this Appeal from Order deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. pnd/ao74.06 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)