Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1735 (PNJ)

Darshan Singh v. Kewal Mohan

2014-12-15

MAHAVIR SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mahavir Singh Chauhan, J. 1. This, is owner's appeal against award dated August 13, 2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short "the Tribunal") awarding in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 (herein-after referred to as, "the claimants") compensation amounting to Rs. 8,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filling of the claim application till realisation. As per case of the claimants, at or around 10.30 p.m. on July 29, 2012 Davinder Kumar alias Dara, aged between 26-28 years, a skilled labourer, died in an accident which took place between the motor-cycle driven by him and a four wheeler bearing registration No. RJ 13 IG 1221 being driven by Rakesh Kumar, respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner. Widow, a minor son, mother and father of Davinder Kumar alias Dara, respondent Nos. 4 to 7, respectively, filed claim application No. 29903 of 2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation for loss of dependency caused by death of Davinder Kumar alias Dara. The application was contested by the driver, the owner (appellant herein) and the financer of the offending four wheeler (respondent No. 3 here in). The appellant, however, took a stand that he was not the owner of the offending vehicle on the date of accident as it had already been seized by the financer and sold to Kewal Mohan, respondent No. 1, way back in the year 2006. 2. Learned Tribunal framed issues, took evidence and on appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the parties came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the four wheeler bearing registration No. RJ 13 IG 1221 by Rakesh Kumar, respondent No. 1 and awarded compensation in favour of the claimants holding the appellant/respondent No. 2(a) and respondent No. 2, Kewal Mohan jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the afore-said award, the present appeal has been filed by the registered owner of the offending four wheeler. 4. Though the appeal is barred by time but I have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits besides perusing the impugned award. 5. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the afore-said award, the present appeal has been filed by the registered owner of the offending four wheeler. 4. Though the appeal is barred by time but I have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits besides perusing the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not the owner of the offending vehicle as it had been seized by respondent No. 2 and had been sold by it to respondent No. 1 in the year 2006 and physical possession of the vehicle was also delivered to first respondent under the orders of Consumer Court, which fact was admitted by the first respondent in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. According to learned counsel only because name of the appellant is recorded as owner of the vehicle in question in the Registration Certificate he cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation, rather it is the last owner - Kewal Mohan, i.e., respondent No. 1 herein, who is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 6. Factum and manner of occurrence, as also entitlement of the claimants to receive compensation and the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, are not in dispute. 7. The only question which requires determination in this appeal is whether the appellant, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, is liable or the first respondent, the transferee, who has purchased the motor vehicle but did not get change ownership effected with the Registering Authority and in the registration certificate thereafter, is to pay the compensation. 8. To find an answer to the riddle involved herein, it would be of benefit to refer to relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short - the Act'). Section 168 of the Act deals with the Award of the Claims Tribunal. It reads thus:- "168. 8. To find an answer to the riddle involved herein, it would be of benefit to refer to relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short - the Act'). Section 168 of the Act deals with the Award of the Claims Tribunal. It reads thus:- "168. Award of the Claims Tribunal - (1) On receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim, or as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whim compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award. (3) Where an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct." Sub-section (30) of Section 2 of the Act defines "owner", which reads as under:- "Owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement." Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 50 of the Act ibid provide for the manner in which "Transfer of ownership" shall take place and read thus:- "(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,- (a) the transferor shall,- (i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen 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; and (ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty-five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in sub-clause (i)- (A) the no objection certificate obtained under Section 48; or (B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,- (I) the receipt obtained under sub-section (2) of Section 48; or (II) the postal acknowledgement received by the transferee if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgement due to the registering authority referred to in Section 48, together with a declaration that he was not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted; (b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration. (2) Where- (a).................... (b).................... (3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer within the period specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1), as the case may be, or if the person who is required to make an application under sub-section (2) (hereinafter in this section referred to as the other person) fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the transferor or the transferee, or the other person, as the case may be, to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under Section 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under sub-section (5) : Provided that action under Section 177 shall be taken against the transferor or the transferee or the other person, as the case may be, where he fails to pay the said amount." 9. It is thus seen that Section 168 of the Act provides that the Tribunal, on an application filed under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation, shall, after enquiring into the claim etc., may make an award determining the amount of compensation specifying the person to whom such compensation shall be paid. It shall also specify while making the award as to the amount which shall be paid by the insurer, the owner or the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or all or any of them. In case, the offending vehicle is not insured, then in that situation, the owner or the driver of the said vehicle shall be made liable to pay the awarded amount. The word "owner" as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act would mean such a person in whose name the vehicle stands registered. Section 50 of the Act provides for various requirements of law which are required to be observed before the name of the registered owner is substituted by name of the transferee and the registration certificate is amended incorporating such change. 10. Section 50 of the Act provides for various requirements of law which are required to be observed before the name of the registered owner is substituted by name of the transferee and the registration certificate is amended incorporating such change. 10. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that the owner is a person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered with the registering authority and the transfer of the vehicle takes place only when the requirement prescribed under the Act are complied with and the registering authority enters the change of ownership in its records. It is, thus, needless to state that reference to the term "owner" in Section 168 of the Act is to the registered owner of the vehicle. 11. It has remained undisputed that notwithstanding the seizure/sale of the vehicle, neither the appellant (the registered owner), nor the transferee, Kewal Mohan, took any steps for the change of the name of the owner in the certificate of registration of the offending vehicle. In view of this omission appellant 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 seizure/sale in the year 2006. 12. The question of the liability of the recorded owner of a vehicle after its sale to another person was considered by the Apex Court in Dr. T.V. Jose Vs. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 748 . In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed and held as follows : "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. He pointed out that an Advocate had filed appearance on behalf of Mr. 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. The Appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Mr. Roy Thomas in these Appeals. Mr. Roy Thomas was not a party either before 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 Mr. Roy Thomas. It will be for the Appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Mr. Roy Thomas if, in law, he is entitled to do so." 13. Again, in P.P. Mohammed v. K. Rajappan & Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 624, Supreme Court examined the same issue under somewhat similar set of facts as in the present case and held as follows : "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. 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. So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person." 14. The decision in Dr. T.V. Jose (supra) 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. 15. The statement of law as enunciated in Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. and P.P. Mohammed v. K. Rajappan & Ors. (supra), has been reiterated in Pushpa @ Leela and Others Vs. Shakuntala and Others, (2011) 2 SCC 240 , Vipin Kumar Sharma Vs. Jagwant Kaur and Others (2007) ACJ 1249, and Rulda Singh and Others Vs. Amarvir Kaur and Others, (2010) ACJ 1242. 16. On the basis of above-cited decisions, the inescapable conclusion is that the appellant, whose name, admittedly, continued in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the offending four wheeler, was equally liable for payment of the compensation amount. 17. In light of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the appellant is not liable to pay the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Once it is found that the appellant cannot escape his liability to pay the amount of compensation, there is no merit in this appeal. However, it shall be open to the appellant to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the financer and/or the vendee. Once it is found that the appellant cannot escape his liability to pay the amount of compensation, there is no merit in this appeal. However, it shall be open to the appellant to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the financer and/or the vendee. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Civil Miscellaneous No. 27816-CII of 2014 Appeal challenging award dated August 13, 2014 having been dismissed, this application seeking stay of operation of the aforesaid award is rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.