Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 294 (MP)

Banesingh v. Leelabai

2008-02-22

N.K.MODY

body2008
JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 14.8.2006, passed by Additional M.A.C.T., Nursinghgarh, in Claim Case No. 3 of 1998, filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, whereby in a death case learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,62,000 and exonerated respondent No. 6 from the liability of compensation, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed a claim petition alleging that on 26.5.1997, the deceased Bankatlal was going in a bus from Khujner to Jeerapur. It was alleged that in the way when deceased was sitting on roadside, as the bus was out of order at about 10.10 p.m., at that time a motor cycle, which was bearing registration No. MP 04-H 1536, which was being driven by appellant dashed the deceased, with the result Bankatlal died. It was alleged that respondent No. 6 is the owner of the vehicle. It was alleged that since the deceased died because of rash and negligent driving of appellant, therefore, appellant and respondent No. 6 are liable for payment of compensation. 3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant and also respondent No. 6. The contention of respondent No. 6 was that the accident took place on 26.5.1997, while the offending motor bike was sold by respondent No. 6 to the appellant on 15.3.1997. It is also alleged that after the accident appellant himself has moved an application before J.M.F.C. for taking the custody of the offending motor bike and in the said application it was stated by the appellant that he has purchased the motor bike and he is the owner of the motor bike. In the reply filed by respondent No. 6 it was alleged that since the appellant himself has admitted that he is the owner of the vehicle and was also driving the offending vehicle, therefore, respondent No. 6 cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed. 4. Appellant also filed the written statement, wherein the liability was disputed. It was denied that appellant was driving the offending vehicle. It was also denied that appellant has never purchased the motor bike. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,62,000. It was denied that appellant was driving the offending vehicle. It was also denied that appellant has never purchased the motor bike. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,62,000. So far as liability of payment is concerned, learned Tribunal held that the appellant has purchased the motor bike prior to the date of accident and appellant was driving the offending vehicle, therefore, the appellant is liable for payment of compensation and respondent No. 6 was exonerated. Against this award, whereby the respondent No. 6 was exonerated, the present appeal has been filed. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that indisputably respondent No. 6 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. There is no documentary evidence, which goes to show that at any point of time motor bike was sold to the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case the award whereby respondent No. 6 has been exonerated is illegal and deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, according to which it is statutory duty of the registered owner of the vehicle to move appropriate application within 14 days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee. 6. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while examining Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in a case where owner sold his car before the date of accident and there were several subsequent transfers of the vehicle, observed that the transferor continued to be the owner as his name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. 7. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Shiv Lal v. Kahnu Ram (HP), wherein High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that in a case where the transferee owner did not deny the ownership in his written statement, in that case the de facto owner as well as the owner shown in registration certificate are liable to the third parties. Reliance was also placed on a decision in the matter of Dhulichand v. Kanti Lal (Rajasthan), wherein Rajasthan High Court in a case where the registered owner contended that he sold the vehicle and transferee owner, who had control over the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. It was held that Tribunal was justified in mulcting liability on the registered owner. 8. Mr. N.S. Bhati, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that Exh. P3, which is an application filed by appellant before the J.M.F.C, Rajgarh, is enough to prove that the offending vehicle was sold by the respondent No. 6 to the appellant. It is submitted that since appellant himself has admitted that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and obtained the custody of the offending vehicle, therefore, now the appellant cannot ask that respondent No. 6 is liable for payment of compensation, as the offending vehicle was standing in the name of respondent No. 6. 9. Reliance was also placed on a copy of mukhtarnama khas, which is not on record and which has been vehemently opposed by learned Counsel for the appellant that this document cannot be looked into because it was never placed before the learned Tribunal. However, even after the opposition of the appellant this document has also been examined by this Court and it was found that in this document, which is a power of attorney dated 9.6.1997, it was mentioned that vehicle was sold by the respondent No. 6 to the appellant on 15.3.1997. This document was written on 9.6.1997, while the accident took place on 26.5.1997, it appears that this power of attorney was executed by the respondent No. 6 to enable the appellant to get the custody of the vehicle from the court by moving an appropriate application. Undisputedly enough evidence is on record to show that appellant is the owner of motor bike and was also owner of the motor bike on the date of accident. Undisputedly enough evidence is on record to show that appellant is the owner of motor bike and was also owner of the motor bike on the date of accident. However, since the respondent No. 6 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No. 6 failed to move appropriate application for getting the offending vehicle transferred in the office of R.T.O., therefore, the learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent No. 6. In view of this appeal stands allowed in part. Finding of the learned Tribunal whereby respondent No. 6 was exonerated stands set aside. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 shall be at liberty to recover the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from respondent No. 6 and appellant jointly and severally. 10. With aforesaid observations appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.