Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 513 (CHH)

ANIL KUMAR KESHARWANI v. KU. SATYAWATI KASHAYAP

2006-11-13

D.R.DESHMUKH

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard of admission. 2. This Misc. Appeal is directed against the order dated 26.6.2006 passed by the First Additional motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur whereby an amount of compensation of Rs. 25,0001- was directed to be paid by the appellant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on principle of no fault liability. 3. Briefly stated the undisputed facts are that the appellant herein is the authorized dealer of Sonalika International Tractor at Bilaspur. On 6.11.2005, a Sonalika International Tractor valued at Rs. 3,58,735,/- and Trolley valued at Rs. 70,000/- was delivered by the appellant to one Jagdish Prasad Sharma for demonstration purpose after receiving an amount of Rs.35,000/-. It so happened that while the tractor trolley was in custody of Jagdish prasad Sharma and was being driven by his driver Dilip Kumar Kashyap, near Ratanpur on 9.11.2005, it cashed against Satyawati Kashyap. It is also not in dispute that neither the tractor trolley was insured on the date of accident nor was it registered in the name of Jagdish Prasad Sharma on the ill fated day. It is also not in dispute that remaining consideration was due and unpaid on the date of accident. 4. The claimant pleaded that she sustained grievous injury i.e. Paraplegia (Traumatic) on the back. The Medical Board certified that 90% disability was caused to Ku. Satyawati Kashyap. In Claim Petition C.T. No. 161/2005 for compensation an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed. 5. Learned first Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur recorded the finding that on 9.11.2005, the Tractor Trolley was in custody of Jagdish Prasad Sharma only for demonstration purpose on his consent and only a sum of Rs. 35,000/- had been paid by him to the authorized dealer i.e. appellant herein. It also recorded the finding that on the basis of the certificate given by the Medical Board permanent disability was caused to Ku. Satyawati Kashyap. 6. Shri Hemant Gupta learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that delivery of possession and payment of consideration are sufficient to fasten liability on the purchaser on the principle of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act even though on the date of accident, the Vehicle was not registered in the name of purchaser. Raliance was placed on San jay Singh Thakur Vs. Raliance was placed on San jay Singh Thakur Vs. Sultan Ahmad & others, wherein it was held that payment of consideration accompanied by delivery of possession of motor vehicle completes the transaction of sale and constitutes liability of the purchaser under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Having heard the learned counsel and after perusing the documents as also the case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that this Misc. Appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine. The case law cited does not come to the aid of the appellant and is clearly distinguishable as it is not disputed that on the date of accident, only a sum of Rs.35,000/- had been paid and entire remaining consideration was due. Thus transaction of sale was not complete on the date of accident since entire remaining consideration was due. Under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability to pay compensation in respect of any permanent disability arising out of an accident therefore, squarely rests on the appellant who was the owner and authorize dealer of the Sonalika Tractor Trolley in question on the date of accident. 8. In view of the above, this Misc. Appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed at the stage of admission. M.(C).P. No. 1820/2006, for stay of interim award also stands disposed of. Appeal Rejected.