Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 998 (RAJ)

M. D. High School Buchawas v. Ramkala

2010-05-10

RAJESH BINDAL

body2010
Hon'ble BINDAL, J.— The registered owner of the vehicle is before this Court challenging the award dated 1.11.2007, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the appellant and respondent no. 5 Netarpal and respondent no. 9 were held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. 2. Briefly, the facts are that on 26.10.2004, Ashok Kumar along with his father Rohtash Singh was going to village Kemla on motorcycle bearing no. HR-34A/4428. It was driven by Ashok Kumar. From Kemla Turning T-Point, one Ami Lal also joined them on the motorcycle. At about 8.00 p.m., when they reached in the area of village Kemla, a bus bearing no. HR-66/0086, driven by respondent no. 5 Netarpal in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and hit the motorcycle. As a result of this, they fell down. Rohtash Singh and Ami Lal suffered multiple injuries. They were shifted to CHC, Kanina, where Rohtash Singh succumbed to his injuries and Ami Lal was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. Ami Lal also succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. FIR No. 311 dated 26.10.2004 was registered with Police Station, Mahendergarh, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending bus. Thereafter, the dependents of the deceased filed claim petitions which were allowed by the learned Tribunal. The appellant, respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 9 were held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. As the offending vehicle was in the name of the appellant, the learned Tribunal also held it liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant as owner and to pay the compensation are perverse as he had already sold the bus in question to Om Parkash son of Mehar Chand, respondent no. 6 on 5.12.2002 and possession of the bus was also handed over to him. Thereafter, the bus in question was sold to one Virender Singh son of Dalip Singh, respondent no. 7. He further submitted that when the accident took place, the vehicle in question was in the possession of Vali Singh son of Bhoop Singh, resident of Mahendergarh- respondent no. 9, who had admitted that the bus was purchased by him from one Virender Singh on 28.8.2004. 7. He further submitted that when the accident took place, the vehicle in question was in the possession of Vali Singh son of Bhoop Singh, resident of Mahendergarh- respondent no. 9, who had admitted that the bus was purchased by him from one Virender Singh on 28.8.2004. The submission was that when respondent no. 9 had admitted his ownership over the bus in question, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the appellant is also liable to satisfy the award is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper-book, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The learned Tribunal has not absolved respondent no. 9, the alleged purchaser, from his liability to pay the compensation, rather he has been held jointly liable. As the appellant is the registered owner, the learned Tribunal at its own cannot absolve it from its liability because the offending vehicle was still in the name of the appellant. 6. The only issue, which requires consideration by this Court is as to who is liable to satisfy the award where the vehicle had been allegedly transferred from one person to another but such transfer has not been given effect to with the registering authority. This issue has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and various High Courts. 7. In Champalal vs. Ramchander and another, AIR 1976 Rajasthan 75, Rajasthan High Court held as under: “Then Sec. 31 provides for a transfer of ownership of any such vehicle. It follows from the provisions referred to above that the registration certificate is an essential requirement before any such motor vehicle can be made use of and that any person in whose favour this certificate of registration is issued would obviously be the owner thereof. In case of any transfer of ownership in respect of that motor vehicle, the procedure contemplated under Section 31 has to be followed and till any such transfer is entered in the certificate of registration, it has to be presumed that the person in whose favour such certificate of registration stands, is the owner.” 8. In Dr. In case of any transfer of ownership in respect of that motor vehicle, the procedure contemplated under Section 31 has to be followed and till any such transfer is entered in the certificate of registration, it has to be presumed that the person in whose favour such certificate of registration stands, is the owner.” 8. In Dr. T.V. Jose vs. Chacko P.M. And others, 2001 ACJ 2059 = RLW 2002(1) SC 48, Hon'ble the Supreme Court dealing with a similar proposition opined as under: “10. We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not right in holding that the appellant continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However, the appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. As owner. The appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Roy Thomas in these appeals. Roy Thomas was not a party either before the MACT or the High Court. In these appeals we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the appellant and Roy Thomas. It will be for the appellant to adopt appropriate pro-ceedings against Roy Thomas if in law, he is entitled to do so.” 9. A Division Bench of this Court in Vipin Kumar Sharma vs. Jagwant Kaur and others, 2007 ACJ 1249 , referred to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dr. T.V.Jose's case (supra) opined that a registered owner of the vehicle was liable to satisfy the award of the Tribunal. However, it was left open to the appellant therein to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the purchaser, as claimed in that case. 10. A perusal of the paper-book also shows that this court vide order dated 22.12.2008 stayed the execution of the award subject to deposit of Rs. 4 lacs by the appellant with the Tribunal. However, as stated by the counsel, the said order has not been complied with. 11. Though the learned Tribunal assessed the compensation by passing a joint award in favour of the dependents of deceased Rohtash Singh and Ami Lal. 4 lacs by the appellant with the Tribunal. However, as stated by the counsel, the said order has not been complied with. 11. Though the learned Tribunal assessed the compensation by passing a joint award in favour of the dependents of deceased Rohtash Singh and Ami Lal. But the appellant has filed appeal against the award passed in the claim petition of Rohtash Singh, meaning thereby that he has admitted his liability with regard to deceased Ami Lal with same findings. 12. Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law and the facts that the appellant on the one hand showed his faith in the court but on the other hand, he is not complying the order passed by it on 22.12.2008 and also that he admitted the finding of the learned Tribunal holding him liable to pay the compensation by not filing appeal against the award passed in the case of deceased Ami Lal and challenged the same finding by filing the present appeal in the case of deceased Rohtash Singh. Finding no merit in the appeal filed by the registered owner of the vehicle, the same is dismissed. However, he would be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law against the person to whom the vehicle had been allegedly sold.