Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1832 (PNJ)

Rulda Singh v. Amarvir Kaur

2008-11-03

HARBANS LAL

body2008
Judgment Harbans Lal, J. 1. This appeal is directed by Rulda Singh, Amar Singh and Surjit Singh against the award dated 13.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which the present appellants were held liable for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,02,200 jointly and severally. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. The facts are these: On 11.1.2003 at about 6.30 p.m., Netar Singh and Chamkaur Singh were proceeding from Amloh towards village Warraichan on a scooter bearing registration No. PB 48-3002 driven by Netar Singh. Chamkaur Singh was sitting on the pillion seat. When they neared village Noorpura near Amloh, meanwhile a tractor bearing registration No. PBD 1503 of which one light was on being driven by Rulda Singh came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. Netar Singh slowed down the speed and stopped the scooter on his own side on seeing the tractor coming on the wrong side. The tractor struck against the scooter. As a result of its impact, the driver as well as the pillion rider of the scooter sustained injuries. The injured persons were removed to the hospital. Netar Singh succumbed to the injuries. On these allegations, the claim petition was filed. All the five respondents resisted the claim petitions by traversing the facts embodied therein. Ujaggar Singh as well as Amarjit Singh, respondents put forth that they had sold the tractor in question to respondents Amar Singh and Surjit Singh on 19.9.2002. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: "(1) Whether Netar Singh died in the accident which took place on 11.1.2003 at 6.30 p.m. at village Noorpura near Amloh due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, Rulda Singh while driving tractor No. PBD 1503? OPA (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPA (3) Relief." 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed the award as noticed at the outset. As is borne out from the record, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein this appeal were being represented by Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were being represented by Mr. Suvineet Sharma, Advocate. None has come forward to argue on behalf of these respondents. 4. As is borne out from the record, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein this appeal were being represented by Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were being represented by Mr. Suvineet Sharma, Advocate. None has come forward to argue on behalf of these respondents. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Tribunal with due care and circumspection. 5. Mr. Damanjeet Singh, Advocate on behalf of the appellants argued that the learned Tribunal in para 16 of the impugned award has observed as under: "Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has argued that they had sold the vehicle to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the accident. Exh. R1 is the affidavit executed by Ujaggar Singh and Amarjit Singh to the effect that they had sold the tractor No. PBD 1503 in favour of Amar Singh and Surjit Singh. Exh. R2 is the copy of the application moved by Amar Singh and Surjit Singh for getting the tractor released on super- dari being owners. They had also executed the superdari bond in this regard, Exh. R3 and Exh. R4. Thus, from these documents it is evident that at the time of the accident respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were owners of the tractor in question. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are held liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally. This issue is decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3." 6. Stressing his every nerve, he agitated at the Bar that the above findings are in teeth with the settled law that unless the vehicle is not transferred by the competent authorities in the name of the proposed vendee, the previous owner continues to be the registered owner in view of the observations made in Vipin Kumar Sharma v. Jagwant Kaur, 2007 ACJ 1249 (P&H); Niranjan Singh v. Zeena, 2008 ACJ 973 (P&H) and S.S. Sodhi v. Chander Vikas, 2008 ACJ 861 (P&H). Thus, obviously the afore-extracted findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are liable to be reversed. 7. I have well considered these submissions. In Dr. Thus, obviously the afore-extracted findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are liable to be reversed. 7. I have well considered these submissions. In Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M., 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC), the Apex Court held in para 10 of the judgment that an owner continued to remain liable to third parties, as his name has not been changed in the records of the R.T.O. There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the vehicle but an owner still continues to remain liable to third parties as long as his name continued in the records of the R.T.O. as the owner, who could adopt appropriate proceedings against the vendee if in law, he is entitled to do so. In Vipin Kumar Sharmas case, 2007 ACJ 1249 (P&H), the Division Bench of this court held that the liability of the registered owner of the vehicle continues till the registration continues in his name even if the vehicle stood sold/transferred. The remedy for inter se liability of registered owner and a transferee may be under the ordinary civil law. In Niranjan Singhs case, 2008 ACJ 973 (P&H), it has been held that an unregistered transferee cannot be made liable. The liability can be fastened only against registered owner of the vehicle. He will, however, be entitled to recover the amount from the transferee. In the instant case, Ujaggar Singh as well as Amarjit Singh, respondents came up with the plea before the Tribunal that they had sold the offending tractor to respondents Amar Singh as well as Surjit Singh by way of affidavit, Exh. R1. In view of the rule laid down in the aforequoted authorities Ujaggar Singh and Amarjit Singh, respondents being the registered owners of the offending vehicle at the time of accident remained liable to third parties. Thus, in the nature of things, learned Tribunal was not justified in holding the appellants to be liable for making payment of the compensation merely on the ground that Ujaggar Singh and Amarjit Singh, respondents had executed the affidavit, Exh. Rl in relation to the sale of tractor No. PBD 1503 in favour of appellants Amar Singh as well Surjit Singh. Rl in relation to the sale of tractor No. PBD 1503 in favour of appellants Amar Singh as well Surjit Singh. To exonerate themselves from the liability, it was obligatory upon Ujaggar Singh as well as Amarjit Singh to prove that the offending vehicle has been transferred by the concerned Regional Transport Authority/ District Transport Officer in the name of the appellants. In the absence of such evidence, they could not wriggle out of their initial liability to pay the amount of compensation. 8. In view of the preceding discussion, this appeal succeeds and is accepted. Consequently, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the respondents Ujaggar Singh, Amarjit Singh and Rulda Singh are initially liable for payment of the amount of compensation, i.e., Rs. 6,02,200 jointly and severally. However, it shall be open to Ujaggar Singh as well as Amarjit Singh, respondents, to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the vendees Amar Singh and Surjit Singh. Disposed of accordingly.Appeal allowed.