Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Bhanwarlal vs Rameshwar S/o Manak Lal Suthar

Appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ''Act'') seeking

enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Phalodi (for short, ''learned Tribunal'') by its judgment and

award dated 12th of September 1997.

By the judgment and award aforesaid, learned Tribunal

adjudicated claim of the appellant under Section 166 of the Act

and awarded him compensation to the tune of Rs.11,500/- for the

injuries suffered by him in a road accident caused by Jeep bearing

Registration No. RSF-4061 near Nagaur-Bikaner Octroi Outpost at

a distance of 250 ft. from Phalodi. In the road accident,

appellant suffered some serious injuries including fracture of left

leg. For claiming compensation, requisite papers relating to

medical treatment administered to him were also placed on record

besides x-ray reports etc.

The learned Tribunal issued notices to the non-applicants

including registered owner of the vehicle. In response to the

notice, except registered owner no one appeared before the

learned Tribunal. The registered owner Madan Gopal, in his reply,

has categorically averred that he has already transferred the

vehicle to one Bhanwar Singh, and therefore, no liability can be

fastened on him. In order to substantiate this plea, some

material facts are also averred including the fact that after the

accident Jeep No.RSF-4061 was released to said Bhanwar Singh

on Supardagi. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of

pleadings of rival parties, framed following issues for

determination:

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

In order to substantiate his claim, appellant himself

appeared in the witness box and examined two other witnesses.

Respondent Madan Gopal, registered owner of the vehicle, also

appeared in the witness box. After conclusion of evidence,

learned Tribunal decided Issue No.1 in favour of appellant and

against respondents holding that accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal

decided Issue No.3, 4 and 5 in favour of registered owner and

against the appellant relying on some documents showing release

of vehicle on Supardagi to Bhanwar Singh. The another crucial

issue, i.e. Issue No.2, relating to quantum of compensation was

decided by the learned Tribunal partly in favour of appellant

quantifying compensation to the tune of Rs.11,500/-.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused

impugned judgment & award and thoroughly scanned the entire

record of the case.

After perusing the impugned award, in my opinion, learned

Tribunal has not at all cared to examine Issue No.3, 4 and 5 in

right perspective. Section 2(30) of the Act clearly envisages that

owner of a vehicle means a person in whose name motor vehicle

stands registered. The definition of ''owner'', as appearing in

Section 2(30) of the Act, reads as under:-

"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."

It is also clearly borne out from a bare reading of Section

168 of the Act that liability to pay compensation in accident claim

rests on insurer or owner or driver of the offending vehicle

involved in accident. The word ''owner'' used in Section 168 of the

Act is required to be construed as per definition given in sub-

section (30) of Section 2 of the Act, referred to supra.

While it is true, the learned Tribunal has observed in the

award that registration certificate has not been placed on record

by either of the parties but then it is not in dispute that no

registration certificate of the vehicle in question in the name of

Bhanwar Singh was available on record. If this finding of the

learned Tribunal is examined in the light of averments contained in

the reply submitted on behalf of Madan Gopal, then it would ipso

facto reveal that he has very candidly admitted that he was

registered owner of the vehicle but subsequently he sold it to

Bhanwar Singh. When it was a positive assertion of respondent

Madan Gopal that he has sold the vehicle in question to Bhanwar

Singh, burden was on him to substantiate the same and to place on record requisite proof in this behalf. Procedure for transfer of

ownership of vehicle, as envisaged under Section 50 of the Act,

reads as under:-

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 acknowledgement received by the transferor if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgement 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 sub- section (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 amount 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.

(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.

Therefore, if the registered owner Mandan Gopal has pleaded

that ownership was transferred to Bhanwar Singh, he ought to

have produced requisite evidence that he has complied with the

provisions of Section 50 of the Act. Admittedly, no proof to that

effect was available on record yet the learned Tribunal has decided

Issue Nos.3 to 5 in his favour on mere ipse dixit without

examining relevant provisions of the Act, quoted supra.

Therefore, in my considered opinion, findings of the learned

Tribunal on Issue Nos.3 to 5 are not based on sound reasoning

rather the same are being recorded in an absolutely casual and

cursory manner, which cannot be sustained.

Now adverting to Issue No.2 regarding adequacy of

compensation, suffice it to observe that, prima facie, I am

convinced that the amount of compensation determined and

awarded by learned Tribunal is not commensurating with gravity

and magnitude of the injuries suffered by appellant.

As nobody is appearing for the respondents and the findings

of learned Tribunal on Issue Nos.3 to 5 are not based on sound

reasoning, and so also the finding on Issue No.2 with which

appellant is disdained, I feel inclined to allow this appeal.

Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and findings of the

learned Tribunal on Issue Nos.3 to 5 are set aside and the matter

is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for deciding Issue Nos.3

to 5 afresh strictly in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal

is further directed to examine the adequacy of compensation

quantified in the light of gravity and magnitude of the injuries

suffered by appellant while deciding Issue No.2 afresh.

Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.

Before parting, it may be observed that claim petition was

laid way back in the year 1994, therefore, the learned Tribunal is

expected to decide the matter afresh as early as possible,

preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of

the record.