Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 39 (JHR)

Ramesh Dubey v. Raj Kumar Pathak

2019-01-04

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2019
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - Heard the Parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant who was the opposite party no.2 in the tribunal, against the judgment and award dated 10.02.2010 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge-cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal at Garhwa in M.V. Case No. 10 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned tribunal has made the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 of the claim petition to be jointly and severally liable for paying the compensation amount of Rs.1,51,000/-. 3. The only question involved in this appeal is "whether the registered owner of the vehicle who is the opposite party no.1- respondent no.2 of this appeal or the opposite party no.2 appellant herein is liable to pay the compensation as the owner of the vehicle? 4. The admitted facts of the case is that as per the information provided by the District Transport Officer, Rohtash (Sasaram) vide Ext.7, the vehicle involved in accident bearing no. BRZ -8232 stands recorded in the name of opposite party no.1 (respondent no.2 of this appeal) as the owner of the said vehicle. 5. The learned tribunal has held that as the said offending vehicle involved in accident was received from police by the opposite party no.2 by Zimanama hence the opposite party no.2 is liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the tribunal jointly and severally with the opposite party no.3 being the driver of the vehicle. 6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the registered owner of the vehicle in the record of Registering Authority is liable to pay the compensation for any accident caused in connection with plying of the vehicle owned by the registered owner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 1 wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under in paragraph nos.13, 14 and 15:- "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, for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the "owner". 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, 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 1939 Act. 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. 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 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. In 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. 15. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and direct that the liability to compensate the claimants in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal will stand fastened upon the first respondent. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." (Emphasis Supplied) 7. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award be modified by dismissing the claim petition in respect of the appellant-opposite party no.2 and instead the opposite party no.1 be made liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally with the driver of the vehicle being the opposite party no.3 to the claim petition. 8. Mr. Awadhesh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-claimant fairly submits that Ext. 7 reveals that the vehicle stands registered in the name of opposite party no.1 before the Registering Authority and he also fairly submits that the law in this respect has been settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and Others (supra). 9. No one turns up on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 in-spite of repeated calls. 10. In view of the principle of law settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and Others (supra) without any doubt, the opposite party no.1- respondent no.2 of this appeal being the owner of the offending vehicle in the records of the Registering Authority despite sale/transfer of the vehicle by him is liable to pay the compensation amount. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award so far as it relates to fastening liability on the appellant opposite party no. 2 is concerned is modified by dismissing the claim petition against the appellant-opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award. 11. 2 is concerned is modified by dismissing the claim petition against the appellant-opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award. 11. This appeal is disposed of accordingly with the aforesaid modification. 12. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith. 13. Registry is directed to pay the statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellant in this court to the appellant after proper identification.