Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 187 (HP)

Chaman Lal v. Murat Ram

2020-02-29

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Aggrieved by fastening of the liability upon the appellant and respondent No.2, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant /respondent No.1 was travelling in bus No. HP-49-1381 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.2 Roop Lal, resulting in multiple injuries and fracture on the leg of the claimant. The accident was reported to the Police at Police Station, Kullu on the basis of which FIR No. 81 of 2007 dated 6.2.2007 was registered against respondent No.2 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. On these allegations, the claimant sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. The appellant contested the petition by filing separate reply wherein he took specific stand that the vehicle was sold by him to respondent No.4 Dhewa Ram and the possession of the vehicle was also given by him to respondent No.4 on 7.4.2006. 4. Respondent No.2 driver of the vehicle admitted that the claimant was travelling in the bus and took defence that he had taken a marriage party of his near relative to village Doghri without any consideration and when the bus reached near Shallang Govt. School, the claimant hurriedly got down in order to answer the call of nature. The driver was slowing down the bus enabling the claimant to alight down but the claimant opened the door without waiting for stopping of the bus and fell down due to his own negligence and sustained injuries. 5. Respondent No.3-lnsurance Company filed its reply whereby it took preliminary objections that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the vehicle was being plied in contravention to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as contract of the insurance policy. It was further averred that the vehicle at the relevant time was being plied without route permit, fitness certificate and token tax etc. It was also averred that the petition had been filed in connivance with respondents No.1, 2 and 4. 6. Respondent No.4-Dhewa Ram filed separate reply wherein he took the plea that he had sold the vehicle to respondent No.2 on 29.1.2007 and thereafter he had no concern with the said vehicle. On merits, he denied the factual position for want of knowledge. 7. 6. Respondent No.4-Dhewa Ram filed separate reply wherein he took the plea that he had sold the vehicle to respondent No.2 on 29.1.2007 and thereafter he had no concern with the said vehicle. On merits, he denied the factual position for want of knowledge. 7. On 12.7.2010, learned Tribunal below framed the following issues: 1. Whether Murat Ram sustained injuries in an accident involving vehicle No.HP-49-1381 driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, if so its effect? OPR-3 4. Whether the claim petition has been filed by the petitioner in connivance with respondents No. 1, 2 and 4, if so its effect? OPR-3. 5. Relief. 8. Subsequently on 30.3.2011, an additional issue 4-A was framed, which reads as under: 4-A. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in contravention with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and contract of insurance policy? OPR-3. 9. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned Tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.5,06,530/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 8.5.2008 till realisation in favour of the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The insurance company was directed to deposit the compensation at the first instance and then to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2. 10. Aggrieved by the award so passed by the learned Tribunal below, the appellant has filed the instant appeal merely on the ground that since the appellant had in fact sold the bus to respondent No.4 on 7.4.2006, who further sold it to respondent No.2 Roop Lal and, therefore, no liability could have been fastened upon the appellant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 12. At the out-set, it needs to be observed that the appellant continues to be reflected as owner of the vehicle in the records maintained by the Registering and Licensing Authority. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 12. At the out-set, it needs to be observed that the appellant continues to be reflected as owner of the vehicle in the records maintained by the Registering and Licensing Authority. Once that be so, then obviously being the registered owner i.e. the appellant is bound to satisfy the award as no transfer of ownership was carried out in accordance with Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In drawing such conclusion, I am duly supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Daga vs. Saveta Sharma and others (2019) 2SCC 747 , wherein it was held that mere transfer of the vehicle would not absolve the registered owner of his liability to third person so long as the name of the registered owner continues in the RTO records. 13. It shall be apt to reproduce the relevant observations as contained in paras 5 to 10 of the judgment, which read as under: "5. It is true that in terms of Section 50 of the Act, the transfer of a vehicle ought to be registered within 30 days of the sale. Section 50(1) of the Act obliges the transferor to report the fact of transfer within 14 days of the transfer. In case the vehicle is sold outside State, the period within which the transfer ought to be reported gets extended. On the other hand, the transferee is also obliged to report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transferee has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept. Section 50 thus prescribes timelines within which the transferor and the transferee are required to report the factum of transfer. As per Sub-Section 3 of said Section 50. if there be failure to report the fact of transfer, fine could be imposed and an action under Section 177 could thereafter be taken if there is failure to pay the amount of fine. These timelines and obligations are only to facilitate the reporting of the transfer. It is not as if that if an accident occurs within the period prescribed for reporting said transfer, the transferor is absolved of the liability. 6. These timelines and obligations are only to facilitate the reporting of the transfer. It is not as if that if an accident occurs within the period prescribed for reporting said transfer, the transferor is absolved of the liability. 6. Chapter XII of the Act deals with Claims Tribunals and as to how applications for compensation are to be preferred and dealt with. While considering such claims, the Claims Tribunal, in case of an accident is required to specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or whether such amount be paid by all or any of them, as the case may be. It is well settled that for the purposes of fixing such liability the concept of ownership has to be understood in terms of specific definition of 'owner' as defined in Section 2(30) of the Act. 7. In Pushpa alias Leela and Ors. Vs. Shakuntala and Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 240 , the vehicle in question belonged to one Jitender Gupta who was its registered owner. He sold said vehicle to one Salig Ram on 02.02.1993 and gave its possession to the transferee. Despite said sale, the change of ownership was not entered in the Certificate of Registration. The earlier insurance policy having expired, the transferee took out fresh insurance policy in the name of original owner Jitender Gupta. In an accident that took place on 07.05.1994 two persons lost their lives. The heirs and legal representatives lodged separate claims and an issue arose as to who was liable as owner. The submissions that Jitender Gupta, the registered owner had no control over the vehicle and the possession and control of the vehicle was in the hands of the transferee and as such no liability could be fastened on the transferor were rejected by this Court. It was observed in para 11 as under:" 11. It is undeniable that notwithstanding the sale of the vehicle neither the transferor Jitender Gupta nor the transferee Salig Ram took any step for the change of the name of the owner in the certificate of registration of the vehicle. It was observed in para 11 as under:" 11. It is undeniable that notwithstanding the sale of the vehicle neither the transferor Jitender Gupta nor the transferee Salig Ram took any step for the change of the name of the owner in the certificate of registration of the vehicle. In view of this omission Jitender Gupta 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 sale on 2.2.1993." 8. In the decision in Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar (2018) 3 SCC 1 , the legal position was adverted to and this Court observed as under. "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". 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. 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 HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Reshma (2015) 3 SCC 679 and Purnya Kala Devi vs. State of Assam (2014) 14 SCC 142 . 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 vs. Chacko P.M. (2001) 8 SCC 748 , 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." 9. The law is thus well settled and can be summarised: (SCC pp. 625-26, para 4) "4......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 ... Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that such registered owner 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." 10. The High Court was therefore absolutely right in allowing the appeal. The challenge raised by the appellant must fail. This appeal is dismissed. No costs." 14. So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person." 10. The High Court was therefore absolutely right in allowing the appeal. The challenge raised by the appellant must fail. This appeal is dismissed. No costs." 14. As regards the right to recover the amount given to the Insurance Company is concerned, the same is perfectly in tune with the law and reference in this regard can conveniently be made to a fairly recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh and another vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. And others 2018 ACJ 1768 . 15. In this view of the matter and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, no fault can be found with the award passed by learned Tribunal below. However, since it is the admitted case of the parties that the appellant had sold the vehicle to respondent No.4 Dhewa Ram, who in turn, sold it to respondent No.2 Roop Lal, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to recover whole or part of the amount, as the case may be, subject to legal proof, from respondents No.2 and/or respondent No.4 by filing an independent suit to this effect and in case the same is filed within 30 days from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, it shall not be open to the respondents to oppose the suit on the ground of limitation. 16. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. The parties are left to bear their own costs.