Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2373 (MAD)

Jaganathan v. Sanjeeva Chetty

2012-06-11

P.DEVADASS

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The 2nd respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.333 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Principal District Judge), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, who has been shown as owner of the offending vehicle has preferred this appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal directing him to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased in the road accident. 2. The vehicle involved in this case is a tractor. Admittedly, since there was no insurance for the vehicle, the claimants have sought for compensation from the appellant alleging him the owner of the vehicle and his driver had caused the accident in which their son had died. 3. On 04.10.1996, at about 9.15 a.m., on the Arur – Salem main road, near Nachinampatti Junction, one Dhanapal, came driven his Hero Honda Bike. At that time, the tractor and trailer came driven by one Kannan in a rash and negligent manner hit against Dhanapal. He fell down. The vehicle ran over him. He died on the spot. His parents, who are respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal, have sought for compensation before the Tribunal. 4. The deceased died a bachelor. The Tribunal taking into account his age, income and other relevant factors, determined the total compensation of Rs.2,06,000/-. The Tribunal negatived the contention of appellant that the said tractor was not involved in the accident and even before the accident he had sold the vehicle to another person and thus directed the appellant to pay them the compensation amount. 5. Challenging this Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that tractor No.TN-29-A-5451 was once belonged to the appellant, however, tractor No.TN-29-A-5452 is mentioned in Ex.B4 FIR, so, tractor No.TN-29-A-5451 is not involved in the accident. Further, the accident was on 04.10.1996, however, under Ex.B2 sale receipt the appellant had sold tractor No.TN-29-A-5451 on 27.09.1995 itself to one Nagaraj. So, on the date when the accident took place, the appellant was not the owner of the tractor. So, he cannot be asked to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal was wrong in directing the appellant to pay the compensation amount. 6. On the other hand, Mr.K.R.A.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the appellant is trying to drive capital out of a typographical mistake crept in in mentioning the tractor number in the typed copy of the F.I.R. issued by the Magistrate Court. The Tribunal was wrong in directing the appellant to pay the compensation amount. 6. On the other hand, Mr.K.R.A.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the appellant is trying to drive capital out of a typographical mistake crept in in mentioning the tractor number in the typed copy of the F.I.R. issued by the Magistrate Court. The oral and documentary evidence let in clearly shows that on the date of the accident, the appellant was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. His Ex.B2 sale receipt is concocted and conceived only to avoid paying compensation to the dependents. 7. Mr.K.R.A.Muthukrishnan further submitted that as long as the appellant's name continues as registered owner in the RTO records, he is bound to pay the compensation. In support this, the learned counsel cited DR.T.V.JOSE Vs. CHACKO P.M. ALIAS THANKACHAN AND OTHERS ( 2001 (8) SCC 748 ) and PUSHPA @ LEELA & OTHERS Vs. SHAKUNTALA & OTHERS (2011(2)CTC 693). 8. Admittedly, on 04.10.1996, at about 9.15 a.m., on the Arur – Salem Main Road, near Nachinampatti Junction, road accident has taken place. In this accident a tractor has been involved. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver, namely, Kannan, who is the first respondent in the claim petition. The said Kannan is stated to be the driver of the appellant. However, the appellant denied his employment with him. 9. P.W.2, Ealumalai has been examined as an eye witness to the accident. He only lodged the complaint with the police. Based upon that police registered the F.I.R. P.W.2 had clearly stated that he had seen the accident, the tractor was driven by the first respondent and it had ran over the deceased and along with the tractor the said driver was also taken to the police station. Ex.A4 is a copy of his driving licence. He remained exparte. 10. The appellant did not deny tractor No.TN-29-A-5451 pertains to him. In the front page of the printed F.I.R, the last number of the tractor, namely, 1' appears to be 2' (See Ex.A1 xerox copy of F.I.R.). That is how, the appellant says that tractor number TN-29-A-5451 is not involved in the accident. 11. Appellant did not specifically raise such a plea in his counter. In the front page of the printed F.I.R, the last number of the tractor, namely, 1' appears to be 2' (See Ex.A1 xerox copy of F.I.R.). That is how, the appellant says that tractor number TN-29-A-5451 is not involved in the accident. 11. Appellant did not specifically raise such a plea in his counter. In the FIR, in the narration portion, that is to say in the body of F.I.R., the number of the offending tractor is clearly mentioned as TN-29-A-5451 (See Ex.A1 xerox copy of F.I.R.). The claimants have issued Ex.B3 notice to the appellant mentioning the vehicle number TN-29-A-5451 as the one involved in the accident. But, there was no response. In Ex.B4, typed copy of the FIR, issued by the Magistrate's Court, the tractor number is typed as TN-29-A-5452. We have already seen that the body of the F.I.R. contains the tractor number TN-29-A-5451 only, however, in its front portion, in the printed column, its last number 1' is over written as 2'. That is how, the number muddle in Ex.B4 typed copy of the FIR. It is clear that in the accident, tractor No.TN-29-A-5451 was involved. That is the offending vehicle in this case. This aspect has been elaborately gone in to by the Tribunal. We concur with the finding of the Tribunal that tractor No.TN-29-A-5451 is the offending vehicle in this case. 12. Now, we go to the other contention of the appellant that on the date of the accident, he was not the owner of tractor No.TN.29-A-5451. 13. As per Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, "a person in whose name motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle". It corresponds to Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Motor Vehicles Act,1988 widened the scope of the term ''owner'' of the vehicle. 1998 Act also includes persons having control and possession of the vehicle under an agreement or arrangement. 14. Sale of Motor Vehicle is governed under Sale of Goods Act. A 'sale' implies transfer of ownership, proprietorship. Title in the vehicle passes on execution of sale receipt, delivery record and actual delivery of the vehicle to the transferee. The transferor/seller ceases to be the owner and the transferee/purchaser becomes the vehicle owner. This is the position under Sale of Goods Act. 15. But, transfer of ownership contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act is different. Title in the vehicle passes on execution of sale receipt, delivery record and actual delivery of the vehicle to the transferee. The transferor/seller ceases to be the owner and the transferee/purchaser becomes the vehicle owner. This is the position under Sale of Goods Act. 15. But, transfer of ownership contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act is different. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, when the vehicle is sold, the seller/transferor ceasing to be the owner of the vehicle and the transferee becoming a owner of the vehicle depends on certain statutory procedure to be followed by both sides. Certain time limit also has been prescribed for carrying out this. This is contemplated under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. It corresponds to Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1939. There is no major change in this respect under both the Acts. Thus, if a person sells his vehicle to another person his title may be lost. But, if no change of entry is made in the Register mentioned in the RTO Office, the transferor/seller of the vehicle continues to be its registered owner. 16. In DR.T.V.JOSE Vs. CHACKO P.M. ALIAS THANKACHAN AND OTHERS (2001) 8 SCC 748 ), long back the offending vehicle was sold by the original owner to another person, however, the original owner's name continue to be in the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle in the Registration Office, subsequently, the vehicle got involved in a road accident, the original owner contended that as he had already sold the vehicle to another person, he ceases to be the owner of the vehicle and he cannot be asked to pay compensation to the road accident victim. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "9. Mr. Iyer appearing for the Appellant submitted that the High Court was wrong in ignoring the oral evidence on record. He submitted that the oral evidence clearly showed that the Appellant was not the owner of the car on the date of the accident. Mr. Iyer submitted that merely because the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. did not mean that the ownership of the vehicle had not been transferred. Mr. Iyer submitted that the real owner of the car was Mr. Roy Thomas. Mr. Iyer submitted that Mr. Roy Thomas had been made party-Respondent No.9 to these Appeals. Mr. Iyer submitted that merely because the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. did not mean that the ownership of the vehicle had not been transferred. Mr. Iyer submitted that the real owner of the car was Mr. Roy Thomas. Mr. Iyer submitted that Mr. Roy Thomas had been made party-Respondent No.9 to these Appeals. He pointed out that an Advocate had filed appearance on behalf of Mr. Roy Thomas but had then applied for and was permitted to withdraw the appearance. He pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas had been duly served and a public notice had also been issued. He pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas had chosen not to appear in these Appeals. He submitted that the liability, if any, was of Mr. Roy Thomas. 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 the owner........” 17. In P.P.MOHAMED Vs. K.RAJAPPAN AND OTHERS (2008(17) SCC 624), when similar question arose, the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to DR.R.T.V.JOSE(supra) held as under:- "4. These appeals are filed by the appellants. The insurance company has chosen not to file any appeal. The question before this Court is whether by reason of the fact that the vehicle has been transferred to Respondent 4 and thereafter to Respondent 5, the appellant got absolved from liability to the third person who was injured. This question has been answered by this Court in T.V. Jose (Dr.) v. Chacko P.M. wherein it is held that even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose name the vehicle stands in RTO records, from liability to a third person. We are in agreement with the view expressed therein. Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that the appellant stands absolved of his liability to a third person. We are in agreement with the view expressed therein. Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that the appellant stands absolved of his liability to a third person. So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person." 18. In PUSHPA @ LEELA & OTHERS Vs. SHAKUNTALA & OTHERS (2011(2)CTC 693), the owner of the truck, whose name appeared in the Certificate of Registration, sold his truck to another person, subsequently, the transferee has sold the vehicle to another person, however, in the Certificate of Registration, the name of the original owner/first seller continued. The truck got involved in an accident. The original owner/first seller disputed his liability on the ground that he has already sold the vehicle to another person and on the date of accident he was not the owner of the vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- ''It is undeniable that notwithstanding the sale of the vehicle neither the transferor-Jitender Gupta nor the transferee-Salig Ram took any step for the change of the name of the owner in the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle. In view of this omission Jitender Gupta must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act, even though under the Civil law he ceased to be its owner after its sale on February 2, 1993." 19. In PUSHPA @ LEELA (supra), referring to DR.T.V.JOSE (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held as under:- "The decision in Dr. T.V. Jose was rendered under the Motor Vehicles Act,1939. But having regard to the provisions of Section 2(30) and Section 50 of the Act, as noted above, the ratio of the decision shall apply with equal force to the facts of the case arising under the 1988 Act. On the basis of these decisions, the inescapable conclusion is that Jitender Gupta, whose name continued in the records of the Registering Authority as the owner of the truck was equally liable for payment of the compensation amount.......” 20. Keeping the above position of law with regard to the ownership of a motor vehicle under the Sale of Goods Act and under the Motor Vehicles Act let us consider the second contention of the appellant. 21. By the tenor of the contention of the appellant one thing is clear. Keeping the above position of law with regard to the ownership of a motor vehicle under the Sale of Goods Act and under the Motor Vehicles Act let us consider the second contention of the appellant. 21. By the tenor of the contention of the appellant one thing is clear. Appellant admits that prior to the accident, namely, on 04.10.1996 he was the owner of the said tractor. He says that under Ex.B2 sale receipt, on 27.09.1995, he had sold the tractor to one Nagaraj. The onus is upon the appellant to establish this. 22. Ex.B2 is stated to have been issued by one Nagaraj to the appellant for his purchase of appellant's tractor on 27.09.1995 for Rs.1,45,000/-. But, the said Nagaraj has not been examined. Ex.B1 extract of vehicle Register is to the effect that the said tractor stands in the name of some other person. It has been pointed out by the claimants that it is a concocted document brought about by the appellant. In the circumstances, the claimants have examined P.W.3 Shanmugam, Superintendent of the concerned RTO Office and through him marked Ex.A5 'B' Register maintained in Registration Office. Ex.A3 is the R.C. Book of the said tractor. Exs.A3, A5 and the evidence of P.W.3 furnish us the ownership history of the tractor. It also tells us who was the registered owner of the tractor on the date of the accident, namely, 04.10.1996. Originally, the tractor was registered in another state in the name of another person. Thereafter, on its purchase by a person in Tamil Nadu it was re-registered in this State as No.TN-29-A-5451. The tractor was registered in the name of appellant on 18.09.1995 and his name continued till 09.12.1996. Ex.A3 R.C. book also contains similar information. The name of said Nagaraj is not entered in the 'B' Register and in the R.C. Book of the tractor. So, on the date of accident, namely, 04.10.1996, appellant was the registered and recorded owner of the said tractor. The driving licence of the first respondent Kannan was also seized. From the accident spot along with the offending tractor , the said Kannan was also taken to the police station. Kannan was shown as accused in the FIR. From the above, it is clear that on the date of the accident, the appellant was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. From the accident spot along with the offending tractor , the said Kannan was also taken to the police station. Kannan was shown as accused in the FIR. From the above, it is clear that on the date of the accident, the appellant was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Thus, subsequently one Angamuthu becoming its registered owner will not change this. 23. Thus, from the above, since on the date of accident, namely, 04.10.1996, appellant was the 'registered and recorded' owner of the vehicle, he can not escape from his liability to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased. 24. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is upheld. The appellant shall deposit the balance compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation amount by making proper application. No costs.