Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 405 (HP)

OMI DEVI v. RAJINDER SINGH

2005-11-02

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2005
JUDGEMENT Deepak Gupta, J.: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in MAC Case No. 55 of 1995 decided on 14.3.2001 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants has been dismissed. 2. The facts necessary for the decision of this case are that claimants are the widow and minor children of Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar died in an accident which took place on 14.12.1993 at 6 p.m. near a place called Gidarwah in District Faridkot, Punjab.... the claim petition it was alleged that the deceased was travelling in Car No. HIE-1191 and the said Car was owned by the Pene Ram @ Painu Ram and was being driven by Gurudev Singh in a rash and negligent manner. Initially one Rajinder Singh was shown to be owner of the Car but later on Painu Ram was also impleaded as a respondent. 3. Initially Rajinder Singh and Gurudev did not put in appearance and the MACT, Hamirpur passed an award in favour of the claimants for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-. However, later on Rajinder Singh filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte award and the award was set-aside. Thereafter, Paine Ram was also arrayed as on of the owners. The witnesses earlier examined were tendered for cross-examination. The parties led further evidence. Gurudev Singh driver did not appear through out the proceedings. The Tribunal vide the impugned award has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the accident in question did not take pace with vehicle No HIE-1191. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the number of the Car as recorded in the police record was UIB-1191. He has further cone to the conclusion that Painu Ram had sold the vehicle to some scrap dealer (Kabari) from Ganga Nagar and as such Car No. HIE-1191 was not even in existence when the accident occurred. 4. I have gone through the entire record of the case. PW-2 Satish Rana is stated to be travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident. He stated that he alongwith the deceased was travelling in CAR No. HIE-1191 from Ganga Nagar to Bathinda. He further states that when the Taxi was about 3 Kms. 4. I have gone through the entire record of the case. PW-2 Satish Rana is stated to be travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident. He stated that he alongwith the deceased was travelling in CAR No. HIE-1191 from Ganga Nagar to Bathinda. He further states that when the Taxi was about 3 Kms. from Giderwah at village Daula, Gurudev was driving the same at a high speed and banged the taxi against a standing truck. Rajinder Kumar died on the spot itself. Thereafter, he alongwith other injured and the deceased were taken to Giderwah where the post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased. Jagdish Chand, Constable from Police Station, Giderwah has produced the record of the criminal case and has also brought the entire proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P.C. These have been proved as PW-3/A and PW-3/B. PW-4 Watan Singh from the office of the Additional District Magistrate, Kullu has stated that as per the record produced by him ambassador car bearing registration No.HIE-1191 was owned by Painu Ram son of Khem Dass, R/o Sakna Barah, Village Kothi, Tehsil and District Kullu, HP. This vehicle was entered in his name on 22.12.1998 and continues in his name till date. He has produced the photo copy of the registration certificate as Ext.PW-4/A. PW-5 is Painu Ram initially appeared as claimants witness when he had not been arrayed as a respondent. According to him he had sold the vehicle to some scrap dealer. He could not produce any documents to support the sale on the ground that in the floods which took place in the year 1195 all the documents were got washed away. 5. When the witnesses were cross examined after recall of the earlier order Satish Rana stuck to his earlier statement. He however stated that the Gurudev Singh was kept as a driver by Rajinder Singh who was the owner of the Car. He however not seen the RC of the car. He also states that Rajinder Singh was not travelling in the Car and only Gurudev Singh had informed him that the Car was owned by Rajinder Singh. Rajinder Singh appeared as RW-1 and-stated that he never owned any car and had no connection with Ambassador car HIE-1191. He has also denied the suggestion that the car was in his possession or that he works as a scrap dealer. Rajinder Singh appeared as RW-1 and-stated that he never owned any car and had no connection with Ambassador car HIE-1191. He has also denied the suggestion that the car was in his possession or that he works as a scrap dealer. Painu Ram who had earlier appeared as PW-5 again appeared as RW-2. He repeated his earlier version but was unable to produce any proof of the sale. He also states that he had never hired Gurudev Singh to drive the vehicle. 6. The Tribunal has relied upon Ext.PW-3/A the FIR which is in Gurumukhi in which the vehicle number is given as UIB-1191. Apparently the Tribunal did not go through all the documents since they were in Gurumukhi. I have gone through the other documents which are no record and in all the other documents which form part of Exts.PW-3/B the number of the vehicle given is HIE-1191. It is clear that the vehicle shown as UIB-1191 in Ext. PW-3/A is due to some mistake either when preparing the copy or when the original FIR was registered. The record of Section 174 Cr. P.C. Ext. PW-3/B contains the challan and statements of the witnesses under Section 154 Cr. P.C. and 161 Cr. P.C. In all these documents the vehicle number shown in HIE-1191. Therefore, it is held that the deceased died in the accident of ambassador car bearing No. HIE-1191. 7. The most important question is as to who was the owner of the car. Admittedly Painu Ram respondent No.3 continues to be recorded as the owner of the car in all the records. His case is that he had sold the car to one scrap dealer from Ganga Nagar. However, he could not name the scrap dealer. He could not produce any document in support of the fact that he had sold the car. His explanation that the documents were washed away in flood appears to be false. If he had some affidavits prepared and these had been attested by SDM copies of the affidavit could have been obtained from the office of the SDM. Even otherwise any prudent owner of the vehicle when he sales of a vehicle must ensure that he follows the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and should show that he has actually transferred the vehicle. 8. The Apex Court considered a similar point in Dr. Even otherwise any prudent owner of the vehicle when he sales of a vehicle must ensure that he follows the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and should show that he has actually transferred the vehicle. 8. The Apex Court considered a similar point in Dr. T.V. Jose versus Chacko P.M. and others (1991) (2001 ACJ 2059). In that case the accident occurred on 9.4.1987. The appellant claimed that he had sold the car on 7.5.1986 to one M, M had then sold the Car on 12.5.1986 to one A. On 15:8.1996, A sold the car to G and on 18.8.1986, G sold the car to Roy Thomas. It was, thus, claimed that on the date of the accident the car belongs to Roy Thomas but on the Registration Certificate the name of the appellant continues to be shown as owner. The Apex Court in Para-10 held as follows:- "10. We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not right in holding that the appellant continued to be the owner as the name had been changed in the records of R.T.O. There can be transfer of the title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on records shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However, the appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as owner. The appellant could not escape the liability by merely joining Roy Thomas in these appeals. Roy Thomas was not a party either before the MACT or the High Court In these appeals we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the appellant and Roy Thomas. It will be for the appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Roy Thomas if in law, he is entitled to do so." 9. The matter, in fact, stands settled by the Apex Court in P.P. Mohammad versus K. Rajappan and others (2003 ACJ 1595). The Apex Court considered the earlier judgments in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation versus Kailash Nath Kothari 1997 ACJ 1148 (SC) and Dr. T.V. Jose Versus Chacko P.M. 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC) and held as follows: "4. These appeals are filed by the appellant. The insurance company has chosen not to file any appeal. The Apex Court considered the earlier judgments in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation versus Kailash Nath Kothari 1997 ACJ 1148 (SC) and Dr. T.V. Jose Versus Chacko P.M. 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC) and held as follows: "4. These appeals are filed by the appellant. The insurance company has chosen not to file any appeal. The question before this court is whether by reason of the fact that the vehicle has been transferred to respondent No.4 and thereafter to respondent No.5, the appellant got absolved from liability to the third person who was injured. This question has been answered by this Court in case of Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC) wherein it is held that even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, iii whose name the vehicle stands in the R.T.O. records, from liability to a third person. We are in agreement with the view expressed therein. Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that the appellant stands absolved of his liability to a third person. So long as his name continues in R.T.O. records, he remains liable to a third person. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8. The above said observation is in the context of this question. Ail that was being considered in this case was the rights of the original owner vis-a-vis those of the transferee. Also the final decision is based on the terms of the contract between the parties. Therefore, they cannot be drawn out of the context It will accordingly have to be held that the appellant as the person, in whose name registration continues, will remain liable to a third person. However, the person in actual possession would also be liable.” 10. The case of Painu Ram is in fact much weaker. He could not even name the person to whom the vehicle is sold nor he could produce the document, therefore, he continues to be the registration owner and therefore he is liable to pay the compensation. 11. As far as the question with regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned in the claim petition the claimants had alleged that the deceased was employed as a booking clerk with a Goods "Transport Company at a salary of Rs.1800/- per month along with pecuniary benefits. However, these benefits were not defined. 11. As far as the question with regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned in the claim petition the claimants had alleged that the deceased was employed as a booking clerk with a Goods "Transport Company at a salary of Rs.1800/- per month along with pecuniary benefits. However, these benefits were not defined. The age the deceased was about 30 years at the time of the accident. He left behind a widow and two young minor children. In the statement the widow has stated that the deceased was getting Rs.3500/- per month. However, this is against the pleadings and cannot be accepted. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.1800/- per month and deducting 1/3rd i.e. Rs.600/- for the personal expenses of the deceased the dependency of the family works out to Rs.1200/- per month Rs.14,400/- per year. Keeping in view the young age of the deceased, his widow and minor children the appropriate multiplier would be 18 and the compensation for loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,59,200/. The widow is entitled to Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,800/- for funeral expenses and conventional damages. The total compensation payable works out to Rs.2,80,000/- which is apportioned as follows: i) Omi Devi, widow Rs.1,30,000/- ii) Rajesh Sharma Rs.75,000/- iii) Mangla, daughter Rs.75,000/- 12. The claimants are also held entitled to interest @ 9% pa. w. e. f. 25.10.2000 the date on which Painu Ram owner of the vehicle was impleaded as the respondent. Gurudev Singh and Painu Ram are held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. The vehicle was not insured and therefore respondent No.4 cannot be burdened with any liability. 13. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The award of the Tribunal in MAC Case No. 55 of 1955 decided on 14.3 2001 is set-aside and it is held that the claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest as aforesaid and that the respondent Gurudev Singh and Painu Ram being driver and owner are jointly and severally liable to pay this amount. Painu Ram shall however has the right to effect recovery from the person to whom he sold the vehicle by filing a separate suit. No costs.