Anil Kumar Kesharwani vs Satyawati Kashyap and Another

D.R. Deshmukh, J.—This misc. appeal is directed against the order dated 26.6.2006, passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, whereby an amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000 was directed to be paid by the appellant u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on principle of no fault liability.

Briefly stated the undisputed facts are that appellant herein is the authorised dealer of Sonalika International Tractor at Bilaspur. On 6.11.2005, a Sonalika International Tractor valued at Rs. 3,58,735 and trolley valued at Rs. 70,000 was delivered by the appellant to one Jagdish Prasad Sharma for demonstration purpose after receiving an amount of Rs. 35,000. It so happened that while the tractor-trolley was in custody of Jagdish Prasad Sharma and was being driven by his driver Dilip Kumar Kashyap near Ratanpur on 9.11.2005, it dashed against Satyawati Kashyap. It is also not in dispute that neither the tractor-trolley was insured on the date of accident nor was it registered in the name of Jagdish Prasad Sharma on the ill-fated day. It is also not in dispute that remaining consideration was due and unpaid on the date of accident.

Claimant pleaded that she sustained grievous injury, i.e., paraplegia (traumatic) on the back. The Medical Board certified that 90 per cent disability was caused to Satyawati Kashyap. In claim petition, C.T. No. 161 of 2005, for compensation an application u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed.

The learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur recorded the finding that on 9.11.2005, the tractor-trolley was in custody of Jagdish Prasad Sharma only for demonstration purpose on his consent and only a sum of Rs. 35,000 had been paid by him to the authorised dealer, i.e., appellant herein. It also recorded the finding that on the basis of the certificate given by the Medical Board permanent disability was caused to Satyawati Kashyap.

Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that delivery of possession and payment of consideration are sufficient to fasten liability on the purchaser on the principle of no fault liability u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act even though on the date of accident, the vehicle was not registered in the name of purchaser. Reliance was placed on Sanjay Singh Thakur, Bilaspur Vs. Sultan Ahmad, Bilaspur, M.P. and Others, , wherein it was held that payment of consideration accompanied by delivery of possession of motor vehicle completes the transaction of sale and constitutes liability of the purchaser u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Having heard the learned Counsel and after perusing the documents as also the case-law cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that this misc. appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine. The case-law cited does not come to the aid of the appellant and is clearly distinguishable as it is not disputed that on the date of accident, only a sum of Rs. 35,000 had been paid and entire remaining consideration was due. Thus, transaction of sale was not complete on the date of accident since entire remaining consideration was due. u/s 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, the liability to pay compensation in respect of any permanent disability arising out of an accident, therefore, squarely rests on the appellant who was the owner and authorised dealer of Sonalika tractor-trolley in question on the date of accident. In view of the above, this misc. appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed at the stage of admission.

M.C.P. No. 1820 of 2006, for stay of interim award also stands disposed of.