Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1549 (RAJ)

Gyani Ram v. Mahendra Kumar

2014-09-19

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant-non-petitioner has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment/award dated 19.04.2012 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No.1/2007 titled as Mahendra Kumar & Ors. v. Ram Pratap and others whereby learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition preferred by the respondents-claimants and awarded Rs. 3,95,068/- in favour of respondents-claimants against the appellant and respondent No.5-non-claimant jointly and severally. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent's claimants Mahendra Kumar & Ors. preferred the Motor Accident Claims Petition against the appellant and respondent No.5 stating therein that on 03.09.2006 Smt. Sharda Devi was going with her daughter namely Mst. Vimlesh and son named Raman and some neighbours to Gogamedi. At around 1:30 to 2:00 p.m. they were going from Gorkh Teelka to Gogamedi on the proper side of the road and at that time jeep bearing registration No. H.N.N. 0091 being driven by Ram Pratap (respondent No.5) hit the deceased resulting into grievous injuries on her person and she succumbed to the injuries. It was alleged in the claim petition that the jeep was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. 3. The appellant was implicated in the claim petition as non-petitioner being registered owner of the offending jeep. Respondent No.5 non-claimant did not choose to contest the claim petition. 4. Appellant filed a reply to the claim petition wherein it was stated that the vehicle in question was sold to Ram Pratap (respondent No.5) by way of an affidavit dated 09.11.2004 and Ram Pratap is the sole owner of the vehicle, therefore, he is only responsible for any liability owing to any accident from that vehicle. It was also stated that after the accident in question, the vehicle was got released from competent court by Ram Pratap (respondent No.5) and he even filed an affidavit, stating himself to be the sole owner of the vehicle before the concerned court. Learned Tribunal, after recording the statements of witnesses, partly allowed the claim petition vide impugned judgment/award dated 19.04.2012 and passed award against the appellant and respondent No.5 jointly and severally for Rs. 3,95,068/-. 5. Dissatisfied from the impugned judgment/award appellant preferred this appeal. 6. Learned Tribunal, after recording the statements of witnesses, partly allowed the claim petition vide impugned judgment/award dated 19.04.2012 and passed award against the appellant and respondent No.5 jointly and severally for Rs. 3,95,068/-. 5. Dissatisfied from the impugned judgment/award appellant preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the vehicle stands registered in the name of appellant but he sold the same on 09.11.2004 and handed over the possession to respondent No.5 Ram Pratap. After accident the vehicle was seized by police and reported to area Magistrate but therefrom Ram Pratap got it released on 'Supurdginama' in his name after filing the copy of agreement and affidavit to the effect that he purchased the vehicle in question from appellant. He has further submitted that there was no control over the vehicle of the appellant after 09.11.2004. Learned Tribunal, without considering these facts, has wrongly fastened the liability on the appellant, therefore, the appeal may be allowed. He relied on Godawari Finance Co.(M/s) v. Degla Satyanarayanamma, reported in 2008 (2) ACTO 625 and Om Prakash v. Mool Chand & Ors., reported in 2008 (1) ACTO 489 . 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Rakesh Matoria and Mr. S.S. Sisodia supported the impugned judgment/award and submitted that "Owner" is defined under Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which means a person in whose name a motor vehicle is registered. Therefore, the respondent being registered owner of the vehicle is liable for compensation. Hence, learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on him. He further submitted that appeal is meritless, therefore, the same may be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. In the matter of Godawari Finance Co. (Supra) the question for determination before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the financier would be an owner of vehicle under Section 2 (30) of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the facts of that case are altogether different from the present case. In the previous judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi & Ors., 2007 (14) SCALE 168 which was considered in Godawari's case it was held that:- "Parliament either under the 1939 Act or the 1988 Act did not take into consideration a situation of this nature. No doubt, Respondent Nos. In the previous judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi & Ors., 2007 (14) SCALE 168 which was considered in Godawari's case it was held that:- "Parliament either under the 1939 Act or the 1988 Act did not take into consideration a situation of this nature. No doubt, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle despite the fact that the same was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the Representation of People Act. A vehicle is requisitioned by a statutory authority, pursuant to the provisions contained in a statute. The owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner. While the vehicle remains under requisition, the owner does not exercise any control there over. The driver may still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he has to drive it as per the direction of the officer of the State, who is put in-charge thereof. Save and except for legal ownership, for all intent and purport, the registered owner of the vehicle loses entire control there over. He has no say as to whether the vehicle should be given at a given point of time or not. He cannot ask the driver not to drive a vehicle on a bad road. He or the driver could not possibly say that he vehicle would not be driven in the night. The purpose of requisition is to use the vehicle. For the period the vehicle remains under the control of the State and/or its officers, the owner is only entitled to payment of compensation therefore, in terms of the Act but he cannot proceed on the presumption that the Parliament while enacting the 1988 Act did not envisage such a situation. If in a given situation, the statutory definitions contained in the 1988 Act cannot be given effect to in letter and spirit the same should be understood from the common sense point of view." 10. But in that case the vehicle was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of its power conferred under the Representation of People Act as statutory authority, pursuant to the provisions contained in statute. But in that case the vehicle was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of its power conferred under the Representation of People Act as statutory authority, pursuant to the provisions contained in statute. The owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner but here in the case in hand there is no statutory power vests with said Ram Pratap for taking possession from appellant while purchasing the vehicle. It was a simple contract between Ram Pratap and present appellant, therefore, the facts of Deepa Devi's case (supra) are also distinguishable from the present case. 11. So far as the case of Om Prakash (Supra) is concerned, in this case case the Division Bench of this Court has fasten the liability on the purchaser of the vehicle who was having possession at the time of accident but it has never been proceeded that registered owner is not liable for compensation. Therefore, this judgment also does not support the appellant. "Owner" as defined under Section 2 (30) of the M.V. Act which reads as under:- "A person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle it is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation the person in possession of vehicle under that agreement." 12. A bare perusal of the definition clearly reveals that it can be divided into three parts. Firstly, a person in whose name motor vehicle stands registered, shall be considered as the owner of the vehicle. Secondly, if the vehicle stands in the name of a person who is minor, then the guardian shall be considered as the owner of the vehicle. Thirdly, if the motor vehicle is subject to hire purchase agreement or an agreement to lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in whose possession the vehicle is shall be considered as owner. 13. Admittedly, the appellant sold the vehicle to Ram Pratap on 09.11.2014, he merely executed agreement. But the registration of the sold vehicle was not changed in the name of Ram Pratap. In fact, the registration of the vehicle continued to be in the name of appellant. 13. Admittedly, the appellant sold the vehicle to Ram Pratap on 09.11.2014, he merely executed agreement. But the registration of the sold vehicle was not changed in the name of Ram Pratap. In fact, the registration of the vehicle continued to be in the name of appellant. Even on the date of accident, i.e. on 03.09.2006, the vehicle stand registered in the appellant's name. It is not the case of the appellant that the vehicle was either registered in the name of minor or it was a subject matter of agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation or a hire-purchase agreement. Thus, according to the definition given in Section 2 (30) of the Act of 1988, since the vehicle stand registered in the name of appellant. Obviously, it would be treated as "the owner" of the vehicle. Needless to say that the Act makes "the owner" of the vehicle responsible for payment of the compensation to the claimants. Thus, the appellant certainly would be liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 14. However, the learned Tribunal has also noticed the fact that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was in the possession and under the control of Ram Pratap thereafter, the learned Tribunal has also held Ram Pratap as jointly and severally responsible for payment of the compensation amount. Hence, the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with.For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******