Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1144 (KAR)

Parashram Hanmant Pakhare v. Sharada

2020-06-19

V.SRISHANANDA

body2020
JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - This appeal is filed by the erstwhile owner of two wheeler bearing No.CTL-8362 questioning the fastening of liability on him to the extent of 50% by judgment and award dated 10.09.2009 passed in MVC No.2733/2003 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and Principal Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi. 2. The brief facts which are germane for disposal of this appeal are as under:- A claim petition came to be filed by the claimants, who are respondents 1 to 4 herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act stating that on 17.07.2002 at about 6.15 p.m., one Raghunath Mahadev Shinde was crossing the road near Arun Theater, Congress Road, Belagavi, a two wheeler bearing No.CTL-8362 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him due to which he sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to the said injuries. Thus, the claimants sought for suitable compensation. On service of notice, respondent No.1 appeared before the Tribunal and filed statement of objections contending that as on the date of the accident, the first respondent was not the owner of the offending vehicle as he already sold the said vehicle on 12.03.1996 to the father of the second respondent, Mahadev Kamble. In this regard he produced a receipt for having sold the vehicle to Mahadev Kamble. It is further contended that the said Mahadev Kamble did not take necessary steps to get transferred the vehicle in his name and therefore, the liability, if any that is adjudged, should be fastened on to the present owner of the vehicle namely Mahadev Kamble. Respondent No.2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed separate statement of objections denying the claim petition averments in toto. Respondent No.3, who later impleaded into the case on 24.02.2009, by filing an application filed written statement denying the claim petition averments. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal raised following issues:- 1. Whether the claimants prove that, deceased Raghunath Mahadev Shindhe sustained accidental injuries on 17.07.2002 on Congress Road Tilakwadi, Belgaum due to rash and negligent driving of TVS Suzuki Motor cycle No.CTL/8362 by R2? 2. Whether claimants further prove that, deceased Raghunath Mahadev Shindhe died in KIMS Hubli, due to the accidental injuries? 3. Whether claimants prove that they have spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical and conveyance expenses as per para no. 4 of the petition? 4. 2. Whether claimants further prove that, deceased Raghunath Mahadev Shindhe died in KIMS Hubli, due to the accidental injuries? 3. Whether claimants prove that they have spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical and conveyance expenses as per para no. 4 of the petition? 4. Whether the claimants prove the age, income, medical expenses and avocation of deceased as per para no.5 of the petition? 5. Whether Respondent No.1 prove that he was not owner of the vehicle CTL/8362/ TVS Suzuki motor cycle on the date of accident i.e. 17.07.2002 as per para No.4 of the objections? 6. Whether Respondent No.1 prove that, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Mahadev Kamble who has purchased the above vehicle but did not get the same transferred in his name in the RTO? 7. Whether Respondent no.2 prove that the deceased met, with the accidental injuries due to his own negligence? 8. Whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation, and if so under what order and quantum? After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and on hearing the parties, Tribunal answered Issue Nos.1 & 2 in affirmative, Issue Nos.3 to 5 in partly affirmative, issue No.6 does not survive for consideration and Issue No.7 in the negative. 3. It is that judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal by the appellant. 4. The learned counsel Sri. H. M. Dharigond vehemently argued that once the vehicle was sold to the father of the second respondent, Mahadev Kamble and a receipt having been produced, the Tribunal fastening the liability to the extent of 50% on the appellant is erroneous and sought for interference of this Court in this appeal. He further contended that it was the duty cast on the transferee i.e., the father of the second respondent, Mahadev Kamble, to get transferred the vehicle in his name, and the insurance policy if any also would be transferred to the new owner and therefore, fastening of liability on the appellant to the extent of 50% by the Tribunal is bad in law. 5. It is further submitted that the transfer of the vehicle in question by receipt dated 12.03.1996 is not disputed by the second respondent and therefore, the Tribunal fastening the liability to the extent of 50% on the erstwhile owner/appellant herein is bad in law and hence, sought for allowing the appeal. 6. 5. It is further submitted that the transfer of the vehicle in question by receipt dated 12.03.1996 is not disputed by the second respondent and therefore, the Tribunal fastening the liability to the extent of 50% on the erstwhile owner/appellant herein is bad in law and hence, sought for allowing the appeal. 6. In this appeal, the service notice against the claimant was dispensed with. Insofar as judgment passed by the Tribunal, the sixth respondent, who is the present owner of two wheeler, has not preferred any appeal; so also the claimant. As such, the judgment of the Tribunal insofar as respondents 1 to 4 and 6 has become final. 7. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent Sri. Harish Maigur, vehemently contended that mere signing of Form No.29 and passing a sale receipt would not result in transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in question as per the statutory requirements. In this regard, he drew the attention of this Court to Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. In view of the rival contentions, following point would arise for consideration of this Court:- "Whether the appellant has made out a case for allowing the appeal? 9. My answer to the above point is in the Negative for the following:- REASONS 10. In this case, the accident that occurred on 17.07.2002 involving vehicle bearing No.CTL-8362 ultimately resulting in death of Sri. Raghunath Shinde is not in dispute. 11. The Tribunal after answering the issues as above, has clearly held that as on the date of the accident, even though the vehicle was transferred in the name of the father of second respondent, transfer is not complete and has adjudged total compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- and directed respondents 1 & 3 to pay the said amount jointly and severally with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. 12. As observed supra, the claimants have not preferred any appeal so also the present owner of the vehicle and therefore, the judgment and award become final insofar as against those respondents are concerned. 13. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal after adjudging compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- has fastened the liability to the extent of 50% on the erstwhile owner of the vehicle and directed the present owner of the vehicle i.e. sixth respondent herein to pay the balance 50% amount of compensation to the claimants. 14. 13. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal after adjudging compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- has fastened the liability to the extent of 50% on the erstwhile owner of the vehicle and directed the present owner of the vehicle i.e. sixth respondent herein to pay the balance 50% amount of compensation to the claimants. 14. It is submitted by Sri. H. M. Dharigond, the learned counsel for the appellant that he has deposited a sum of Rs.1,76,000/-, which is 50% of the adjudged compensation before this Court. 15. In order to appreciate the grounds urged by the learned counsel for appellant, it is necessary for this Court to refer statutory provisions governing transfer of a Motor Vehicle. Section 50 of the M. V. Act deals with the transfer of the ownership of the motor vehicle. For ready reference, Section 50 of the M.V. Act is culled out hereunder. "50. Transfer of ownership. Section 50 of the M. V. Act deals with the transfer of the ownership of the motor vehicle. For ready reference, Section 50 of the M.V. Act is culled out hereunder. "50. Transfer of ownership. (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 acknowledgment received by the transferee if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgment due to the registering authority referred to in section 48, together with a declaration that he has 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) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, or (b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public auction conducted by, or on behalf of, Government, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle or, as the case may be, who has purchased or acquired the motor vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, in such manner, accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (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) (hereafter 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. (4) Where a person has paid the amount under subsection (3), no action shall be taken against him under section 177. (5) For the purposes of sub-section (3), a State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay on the part of the transferor or the transferee in reporting the fact of transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle or of the other person in making the application under sub-section (2). (6) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1), or an application under sub-section (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration. (6) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1), or an application under sub-section (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration. (7) A registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the transfer of ownership to the transferor and to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority." 16. On bare reading of Section 50 of the Act shows what is the procedure that has to be adopted for transfer of the vehicle. Mere signing of Form No.29 and passing of sale receipt of the vehicle ipso facto does not result in transfer of the motor vehicle. 17. The law enjoins that the erstwhile owner must also fill up the necessary particulars in Form No.30 and then file it before the Registering Authority and it is then the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle is completed. 18. In the present case, admittedly, the erstwhile owner, who is the appellant, did not make any declaration as required under Form No.30. The law on the point that whether the erstwhile owner of the vehicle not declaring required particulars under Form No.30 vis- -vis, the compensation to be paid in an accident involving the transferred vehicle is no longer res-integra. In this regard, this Court place reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which reads as under: (2018) 3 supreme Court Cases 1, Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and others. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Ss. 2(30), 50, 166, 168, 173, 146(1) and 196 Motor accident Liability of "owner" of offending vehicle "Owner" of vehicle Who is Definition of "owner" under S. 2(30) of MV Act, 1988 Scope of Continuance of name of registered owner of vehicle in records of Registering Authority despite sale/transfer of vehicle by him Situation distinguished where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation or is under requisition. (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 748, Dr. T. V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. Alias Thankachan and others. A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Ss. (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 748, Dr. T. V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. Alias Thankachan and others. A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Ss. 31, 94 and 95 Transfer of ownership without intimation to the registering authority Validity and effect Transfer of ownership by payment of consideration and delivery of vehicle, held, permissible but during the continuance of the transferor's name on the records of the registering authority, the transferor would remain liable to third parties In the instant case the vehicle underwent a number of such transfers and the accident took place during the ownership of the last transferee Original owner unsuccessfully opposing before the forums below the claim for compensation to which the last transferee was not a party Original owner impleading the said transferee, only in his appeal to Supreme Court In such circumstance, held, Supreme Court would not examine the question of inter se liability between the appellant and such last transferee Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Ss. 50, 146 and 147 - Constitution of India, Art. 136 Parties Party impleaded in appeal to Supreme Court but not before the forums below Inter se liability between the appellant and such party if to be considered by Supreme Court. 19. On careful perusal of the above decisions, it is crystal clear that the law enjoins a duty on the erstwhile owner to declare certain particulars as contemplated in Form No.30 for completion of transfer of the ownership. Mere passing of a sale receipt or signing Form No.29 ipso facto does not result in transfer of the ownership. In view of the same, the liability to pay the compensation rests with the erstwhile owner of the vehicle. 20. In view of the above legal principles, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and award and accordingly, answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Amount of Rs.1,76,000/-, deposited by the appellant, be transmitted to the jurisdiction Tribunal for disbursement of the same to the claimants, forthwith.