Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 170 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. Kamlesh And Another

2008-01-23

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2008
Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the registered owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 21.9.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short the Tribunal), whereby a sum of Rs. 1,60,000 as compensation along with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum has been awarded to the claimants for the death of their son, Amit and the appellant (registered owner), respondent No. 3 (driver) and respondent No. 6 (actual owner of the offending vehicle) were held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 2. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that on 29.6.2004, claimant Ram Mehar along with his son Amit and sisters son Rajpal were coming to Safidon from his village Khera Khemawati for some work in grain market and at about 9 a.m. when they were going from Anaj Mandi Gate and Amit started crossing Asandh Road, a Maruti car bearing registration No. HR 26-C 6650 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Vicky, came from Safidon side and hit Amit, as a result of which he had received multiple and serious injuries on various parts of his body. He was removed to CHC, Safidon from where he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak but due to serious condition, Amit was taken to Dr. Prem Hospital at Panipat for treatment. On 1.7.2004, Amit succumbed to his injuries and F.I.R. No. 223 was got registered on 30.6.2004 regarding the accident at Police Station, Safidon. It was pleaded that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti car by its driver. It was further pleaded that the deceased was a student, about 15 years of age and used to earn Rs. 3,000 per month by selling milk. It was further pleaded that a sum of Rs. 50,000 was spent on his treatment. With these averments, the claimants filed a claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation on account of the death of their son Amit. 3. The said claim petition was contested by the respondents therein by filing their separate written statements. 10,00,000 as compensation on account of the death of their son Amit. 3. The said claim petition was contested by the respondents therein by filing their separate written statements. Vicky, respondent No. 1, in his statement pleaded that neither any such accident had taken place with Maruti car nor was he driving the said car rashly and negligently. He further pleaded that the police had registered a false criminal case and that the car has been falsely involved in collusion with the claimants to get compensation. Om Parkash, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, respondent No. 2, had pleaded that he was neither the owner nor driver of the car in question as he had sold the said car to one Jai Parkash, son of Ram Nath on 24.9.2001, i.e., prior to the date of accident. It was further pleaded that the car was once again sold in favour of Attar Singh, son of Ram Chander. Jai Parkash, respondent No. 2-A pleaded that he had also sold the car to Raj Kumar, respondent No. 2-B and thus, he was not owner of the car in question on the date of accident. Attar Singh, respondent No. 2-C, pleaded that no accident had taken place with the vehicle in question and a false case has been registered involving the car in question to get the compensation. It was further pleaded that he sold the said car to one Subhash, son of Pirthi Singh on 11.8.2003 and had no concern with the same. He prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal framed various issues and on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties held that Amit had died due to injuries received by him in the accident caused by negligent and rash driving of Maruti car bearing registration No. HR 26-C 6650 by its driver Vicky. Further, it was held that Om Parkash, the appellant herein was still registered owner of the offending vehicle and Attar Singh was actual owner in possession of the offending car at the time of accident. Accordingly, the claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 21.9.2007 and a total compensation of Rs. 1,60,000 was awarded to the claimants in equal shares with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Accordingly, the claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 21.9.2007 and a total compensation of Rs. 1,60,000 was awarded to the claimants in equal shares with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The said compensation was liable to be paid by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 2-C jointly and severally. 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, Om Parkash (respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal) has approached this court by way of present appeal. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant owner is that the said vehicle had been sold by him to Jai Parkash, respondent No. 2-A and necessary documents had been sent to the registering authority (MV), Kaithal for transferring the ownership in the name of transferee. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was not the actual owner on the date, when the accident took place. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kavi Surya Sankaram v. Jarajapu Eswaramma, (1999) ACC 330 and a judgment of this court in the case of Hukam Singh v. Janak Steel Tubes Ltd., 2008 ACJ 644 (P&H), in support of his submission that after sale of the offending vehicle to the respondent No. 2-A and receipt of consideration, the appellant ceased to be its owner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The matter in this appeal is no longer res Integra. A Division Bench of this court in Vipin Kumar Sharma v. Jagwant Kaur, 2007 ACJ 1249 (P&H), while analysing provisions of section 168 of the Act as to the liability of a registered owner had held that reference to owner in section 168 of the Act is to the registered owner of the vehicle and that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of vehicle but under the Act, the liability of the owner subsists qua third party till his name continues in the records of the R.T.O. as the owner. However, the owner has a remedy to recover the amount by adopting appropriate proceedings against the vendee, if in law, he was entitled to do so. 8. This was not the issue before Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kavi Surya Sankarams case, (1999) ACC 330. However, the owner has a remedy to recover the amount by adopting appropriate proceedings against the vendee, if in law, he was entitled to do so. 8. This was not the issue before Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kavi Surya Sankarams case, (1999) ACC 330. Again, in Hukam Singhs case, 2008 ACJ 644 (P&H), a single Bench of this court where the claimant had purchased the vehicle but the same was not changed in his name, had concluded that in view of the provisions of Sale of Goods Act he had a right to receive the compensation. This judgment as well, does not advance the case of the appellant. Finding no merits in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.