Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1829 (HP)

Ravi Sharma v. Sumitra Devi

2018-10-22

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by one Ravi Sharma, impleaded as co-respondent No.1, in M.A.C Case No.4S/ 2 of 2015, where through he challenges the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shimla, upon, the afore M.A.C Case, (i) whereunder the claimants were held entitled to a sum of Rs. 10 lacs, as, compensation, sparked, by, demise of one Bheem Sen, in, a road side accident involving, the, offending vehicle. The indemnificatory liability vis-a-vis the afore compensation amount stands fastened upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed with much vigor, before, this Court that the adversarial findings returned vis-a-vis the appellant, upon issue No. 3, being ingrained with a vice of infirmity. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance, upon, a verdict recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Case titled as Naveen Kumar versus Vijay Kumar, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 1 , wherein, in, paragraphs 13 and 14 thereof, paragraphs whereof stand extracted hereinafter, (i) the Hon’ble Apex Court has expostulated a candid legal proposition that only the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle or lessee thereof or hypothecatee thereof, alone being amenable for saddling, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability. “13. The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges from the above decisions is that in view of the definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, 6 Mohan Benefit (P) Ltd. v. Kachraji Raymalji, (1997) 9 SCC 103 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 610; Rajasthan SRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari, (1997) 7 SCC 481 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi, (2008) 1 SCC 414 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 270 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 209; Mukesh K. Tripathi v. LIC : (2004) 8 SCC 387 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1128, Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi (2004) 5 SCC 409, State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Assn. (2002) 1 SCC 589 : 5 SCEC 217, Pandey & Co. Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2007) 1 SCC 467 and placed reliance on Kailash Nath Kothari [Rajasthan SRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari, (1997) 7 SCC 481 , National Insurance Co. (2002) 1 SCC 589 : 5 SCEC 217, Pandey & Co. Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2007) 1 SCC 467 and placed reliance on Kailash Nath Kothari [Rajasthan SRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari, (1997) 7 SCC 481 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya Kumar Samal : (1988) 1 ACC 204 : (1988) 2 TAC 25 (Ori) and Bhavnagar Municipality v. Bachubhai Arjanbhai : 1995 SCC OnLine Guj 167 : AIR 1996 Guj 51 ; Godavari Finance Co. v. Degala Satyanarayanamma, (2008) 5 SCC 107 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 531; Pushpa v. Shakuntala, (2011) 2 SCC 240 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 399 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 682; T.V. Jose [ (2001) 8 SCC 748 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 94] , SCC p. 51, para 10; U.P. SRTC v. Kulsum, (2011) 8 SCC 142 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 66 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 376; Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam, (2014) 14 SCC 142 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 304 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 251.” for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the ‘owner’. However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a situation such as the present where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability. Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), making a departure from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the registering authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the registering authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the First respondent was the ‘owner’ of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments of this Court in Reshma and Purnya Kala Devi. 14. The submission of the Petitioner is that a failure to intimate the transfer will only result in a fine under Section 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the vehicle. In Dr T V Jose, this Court observed that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. But for the purposes of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the registering authority is the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law must be fulfilled.” 3. Uncontrovertedly the appellant is neither the registered owner of the offending vehicle nor hypothecatee thereof nor lessee thereof, therefore in view of the aforereferred expostulation, of, law, the rendering, of, adversarial findings, upon issue No.3, returned against the appellant, are, amenable for interference, and, accordingly the findings recorded upon issue No.3 are quashed and set aside. 4. Since neither the claimants nor the insurer of the vehicle, have respectively reared any appeal against the award aforesaid, thereupon when the insurer of the offending vehicle stands aptly saddled with the apposite indemnificatory liability, hence the afore portion of the award is maintained and affirmed. 5. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.