Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 136 (AP)

Uppala Muralidhar Rao v. K. Balakrishna Reddy

2009-03-02

S.ASHOK KUMAR

body2009
Judgment : This appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent No.1 against the award, dated 04.1.2007, in O.P.No.1141 of 2001, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Addl.Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The wife, minor children and parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition on the death of one G.Satyanarayana, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor accident that was occurred on 17.2.2001 at about 9.00 A.M. when the deceased was proceeding towards Anantharam from Hyderabad side on his scooter slowly on the extreme left side of the road and on reaching the outskirts of Rayageeri village, Nalgonda District, said to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador car bearing No.AP 23 B 6478 driven by its driver with high speed and dashed from back side against the scooter of the deceased. Due to the sudden impact, the deceased received fatal injuries and died on the spot. The Bhongir police registered a case in Cr.No.17 of 2001 under Section 304(A) IPC. The deceased was aged about 27 years as on the date of accident and he was running a kirana and general stores and he was also a milk vendor and used to earn Rs.4,000/-per month and was contributing all his earnings for the maintenance of the petitioners. 3. First respondent/appellant herein resisted the claim petition by filing a counter denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition and contended that he has already sold away the offending car to the second respondent and prayed to dismiss the petition against him. 4. Second respondent in the OP, who is the first respondent in the appeal filed a counter denying the allegations mentioned in the petition and contending that he is not the owner of the offending vehicle. But respondent No.1 is the owner of the said car. According to him, he being a friend of R-1 obliged his request and paid a sum of Rs.64,500/- to the petitioner on behalf of R-1 which is repayable by the first respondent to him. According to him R-1 also obtained his signatures on some blank papers and also on some printed blank forms on 28.4.2002 and later this respondent learnt about the fraud played by R-1. According to him R-1 also obtained his signatures on some blank papers and also on some printed blank forms on 28.4.2002 and later this respondent learnt about the fraud played by R-1. According to him, if at all any compensation is payable, R-1 alone is responsible for paying the said compensation. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1.Whether the accident that took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador car bearing No.AP 23 B 6478 by its driver resulting in the death of G.Satyanarayana on 17.2.2001? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as PW.1, an eye-witness was also examined as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked with the consent of both the parties. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ambassador car bearing No.AP 23 B 6478. The Tribunal accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.2400/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, arrived at Rs.16,00/- per month towards contribution to his family and by applying the multiplier 18', fixed the compensation at Rs.3,45,600/- under the head of 'loss of dependency'. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner and Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate to all the petitioners. Thus, a total sum of Rs.3,75,600/-was awarded as compensation, which was payable with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 8. The Tribunal further held that the contention of R-1/appellant herein that he sold the car to second respondent cannot be accepted because the registration certificate was not changed, and, therefore, melted the responsibility on the first respondent to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal is filed by the first respondent. 9. 8. The Tribunal further held that the contention of R-1/appellant herein that he sold the car to second respondent cannot be accepted because the registration certificate was not changed, and, therefore, melted the responsibility on the first respondent to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal is filed by the first respondent. 9. Mr.T.Jagdish, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that sufficient documentary evidence has been produced to prove that the vehicle involved in the accident ie., Ambassador Car bearing No.AP 23 B 6478 was sold by the first respondent to the second respondent even as early on 28.10.1999 and the Car was taken delivery by the second respondent on the very same day for which purpose the second respondent has issued delivery note also and after the accident, when the Car was seized by the police, none other than one Rami Reddy, who is his brother's son, has received the custody of the car from the police, which conclusively proved that it was K.Balakrishna Reddy, second respondent, who was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. 10. Notice was issued by this Court to the second respondent, but he has refused to receive the same, and, therefore, there is no representation on his behalf. 11. The Tribunal in its order has relied upon a judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of IMRAN ANSARI v HAJRAT ALI ANSARI AND ANOTHER 2004 ACJ 1056 , wherein it was held that when the registered owner transferred the vehicle by selling it to the 3rd party before the date of accident by executing a letter of delivery by the transferee, neither the transferor nor the transferee got the ownership transferred in the registration certificate, the owner of the said vehicle is liable to pay the compensation on the ground that the ownership does not get changed merely because the owner has entered into some agreement with the third party for the sale of the vehicle. 12. According to the said judgment, law does not recognize any such agreement nor any such sale transaction, unless the requirements contained in Section 60 of the Act have not been complied with and changed the ownership of the registered owner of the vehicle. 13. 12. According to the said judgment, law does not recognize any such agreement nor any such sale transaction, unless the requirements contained in Section 60 of the Act have not been complied with and changed the ownership of the registered owner of the vehicle. 13. Mr.T.Jagdish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that with reference to the following judgments that the change in registration certificate is only a formality to be followed for transfer of ownership of the vehicle. 14. In UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD v JAMEELA BEEVI AND OTHERS 1991 ACJ 820 , a decision of the Kerala High Court is held as follows: "Incidentally, the effect of the registration certificate of the motor vehicle may also be noted. In Aliyar kunju v Subair Khan, 1984 KLT 268 , the effect of the certificate of registration was put in perspective by one of us, Bhat, J. in these words: "...It can be seen that it is not the registration certificate of a motor vehicle which confers ownership on the owner. On the other hand, the registration certificate follows the ownership and not vice versa. The transfer of ownership of a vehicle is a matter governed not by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act but by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act". High Court too, has held that a transfer made in accordance with the Sale of Goods Act must precede registration certificate and that such certificate is not a document of title. (Oriental Fire & General Ins.Co.Ltd. v Vimal Roy, 1972 ACJ 314 (Delhi). It follows, therefore, that what is of essence is the actual transfer of the property in the vehicle and not the certificate of registration." 15. As per the judgment referred to above, it is clear that registration certificate of a motor vehicle is not the document which confers the title on the owner. But on the other hand, registration certificate follows the ownership and not vice versa. 16. In ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V RAJAMANI AND OTHERS 1992 ACJ 354, a Division Bench of Madras High Court is observed as follows: 17. But on the other hand, registration certificate follows the ownership and not vice versa. 16. In ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V RAJAMANI AND OTHERS 1992 ACJ 354, a Division Bench of Madras High Court is observed as follows: 17. A Division Bench of this court in Hema Ramaswami v K.M.Valarence Panjani 1981 ACJ 288 (Madras), laid down that "change of registrion under section 31 of the Act was not a condition precedent for transfer of ownership of the vehicle, but that provision merely imposed an obligation on the transferor and the transferee of the vehicle to notify the transfer, the non-compliance with which will not invalidate the transfer as such, which had already taken place. In view of Exs.B-2 to B-4 and the evidence of RW-1, it has to be held that even on 5.10.1979, long prior to the date of the accident on 6.3.1980, the sixth respondent had sold and delivered possession of the lorry TNY 4629 to the seventh respondent and the moment possession of the lorry was delivered by the sixth respondent and taken by the seventh respondent, the sale was complete and the ownership in the lorry passed from the sixth respondent to the seventh respondent. The resulting position, therefore, is that on the date when the accident took place, viz., 6.3.1980, the seventh respondent was the owner of the lorry". 18. As per the judgment referred to above, the moment the possession of the vehicle is delivered by the transferor after completion of sale and the possession is taken by the transferee, the sale is completed and the ownership of the vehicle passes from the transferor to the transferee. 19. In this case, Ex.B.2 is the receipt signed by second respondent on 28.10.1999. When he has mentioned that he has purchased Ambassador car bearing No.AP 23 B 6478 by paying Rs.92,000/- and he has also admitted that from the date of purchase he is the absolute owner of the said car and became responsible for the profit and loss there from. Ex.B.1 is the delivery receipt signed by the said Balakrishna Reddy/second respondent in the OP on the very same day for having taken delivery of the car from the first respondent. Thus, Exs.B.1 and B.2 clearly show that the car was sold to second respondent, who took delivery of the vehicle on 28.10.1999 itself. Ex.B.1 is the delivery receipt signed by the said Balakrishna Reddy/second respondent in the OP on the very same day for having taken delivery of the car from the first respondent. Thus, Exs.B.1 and B.2 clearly show that the car was sold to second respondent, who took delivery of the vehicle on 28.10.1999 itself. The accident was occurred on 17.2.2001 after the accident, the Ambassador car was seized by the police for inspection by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. Ex.X.1 is the letter written by the Motor Vehicle Inspector to the Station House Officer of Bhongir Rural Police Station, wherein he has mentioned that he has inspected the vehicle and the vehicle may be released after completion of police investigation, if any. Subsequent to that on the same day one Rami Reddy has taken delivery of the car from the police by issuing Ex.X.2 receipt, the said Ramireddy is said to be none other than brother's son of Balakrishna Reddy/second respondent in the OP. Therefore, Exs.B.1, B.2 and Ex.X.2 would clearly show that the car involved in the accident was under the ownership and possession of the second respondent herein. But the Tribunal relying upon a judgment of the Jharkhand has came to the conclusion that there is no change affected in the registration certificate of the concerned Jharkhand, vehicle and the ownership of the car has not passed from the first respondent to the second respondent, and therefore, fastened a liability on the first respondent. I have already applied two judgments, one from the Kerala High Court and another from Madras High Court. It would clearly show that the ownership of the vehicle passes from the transferor to the transferee by executing available document and giving to the question of the document to the transferee. Change in the registration certificate has to follow only the ownership and not as held by the Kerala High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability on the first respondent, who is the appellant herein. It is only second respondent in the OP, who is the first respondent in the appeal who is liable to pay the compensation. There is no dispute with regard to the amount. 20. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability on the first respondent, who is the appellant herein. It is only second respondent in the OP, who is the first respondent in the appeal who is liable to pay the compensation. There is no dispute with regard to the amount. 20. Therefore, this appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellant herein, who is the first respondent in the OP No.1141 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Addl.Chief Judge, Hyderabad, is exonerated from his liability to pay compensation and the liability is fastened on K.Balakrishna Reddy, who is the first respondent in the appeal and second respondent in the above OP. 21. The first appellant has already deposited 30% of the awarded amount before the Tribunal. The appellant is at liberty to withdraw the said amount. The claimants can proceed against the first respondent in this appeal, second respondent in the OP, for recovery of the awarded amount.