Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2467 (MAD)

Asalambika Farm Service v. Karupayee

2018-08-09

J.NISHA BANU

body2018
JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed by the appellant/2nd respondent questioning the liability. 2. According to the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, due to the 5th respondent's/1st respondent's rash and negligent driving of the non-registered Tractor, belonged to the appellant/2nd respondent and the 6th respondent/3rd respondent, the deceased, who was coming on the opposite direction by riding a two wheeler, died on the spot. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,46,000/- and fixing equal liability, the Tribunal has directed the appellant/2nd respondent and 6th respondent/3rd respondent to equally pay the award amount with 7.5% interest. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/2nd respondent would submit that the appellant/2nd respondent is only an agent of the manufacturer of Tractor and he has sold the vehicle to the 6th respondent/3rd respondent. The 6th respondent/3rd respondent has not raised any plea to the effect that the sale consideration was not paid and if such plea would have been taken, the appellant would have produced the documents before the Tribunal that the sale consideration was received. Though the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the vehicle was purchased by the 6th respondent/3rd respondent, it has erroneously fixed liability on the appellant/2nd respondent also. Therefore, the liability fixed on the appellant/2nd respondent may be set aside and the 6th respondent/3rd respondent may be directed to pay the entire compensation amount. In the alternative, he would submit that the Tribunal has erroneously fixed a sum of Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased without any valid proof and awarded higher compensation and the same may be reduced. Thus, he prayed to allow this appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants would submit that the Tribunal has rightly fixed liability on the appellant/2nd respondent and also the 6th respondent/3rd respondent and the same need not be interfered with. He would further submit that the Tribunal has fixed multiplier No.11 considering the age of the mother of the deceased and that the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier No.18 considering the age of the deceased. He would further submit that the Tribunal has not added the future prospects in the income of the deceased, while calculating the loss of income and therefore, he seeks to enhance the award amount. He would further submit though the claimants have not filed appeal, this Court has power to enhance the award amount. 5. He would further submit that the Tribunal has not added the future prospects in the income of the deceased, while calculating the loss of income and therefore, he seeks to enhance the award amount. He would further submit though the claimants have not filed appeal, this Court has power to enhance the award amount. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent/1st respondent would submit that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, the accident had occurred and he had drove the vehicle adhering to the rules and regulations. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent/3rd respondent would submit that the sale consideration has not at all been paid completely and only by paying advance amount of Rs.10,000/-, the vehicle was taken for test drive and while so, the accident had occurred and therefore, the 6th respondent/3rd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation amount. He would further submit that without registering the vehicle, the appellant herein ought not to have delivered the vehicle to the 6th respondent/3rd respondent herein, which is a clear violation of Rule 42 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The Tribunal has erroneously fixed the liability on the 6th respondent/3rd respondent also. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the appeal and fix the entire liability on the appellant/2nd respondent. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records carefully. 8. It is a case of fatal. The manner of the accident is not in dispute. According to the appellant/2nd respondent, he is only an agent and he sold the vehicle to the 6th respondent/3rd respondent and that the 6th respondent/3rd respondent had become owner of the vehicle by purchase and therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation. Admittedly, in this case, the vehicle was not registered and insured at the time of the accident. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows : “2.(30) “Owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a 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.” 9. From the above provision, it is clear that (a) a owner is a person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered and if it is in the name of minor, the guardian of the minor and (b) 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 the owner of the vehicle. 10. At this juncture, this Court is inclined to refer to Rule 42 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which reads as follows : “Rule 42. Delivery of vehicle subject to Registration.- No holder of a trade certificate shall deliver a motor vehicle to a purchaser without registration, whether temporary or permanent.” 11. As per the above Rule, the appellant, who is an agent ought not to have delivered the vehicle without registration. The purchaser also ought not to have taken the vehicle on road without registration. Therefore, the Tribunal has held that both the appellant/2nd respondent and the 6th respondent/3rd respondent are equally liable to pay the compensation. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same. 12. Though the learned counsel appearing for the claimants requested this Court to enhance the award amount, this Court is not inclined to enhance the same, as they have not filed any appeal seeking to enhance the compensation. 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.