M/s. Luggage Point vs Smt. Kamla Devi and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The appellant is aggrieved by the award dated 28.6.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge, Jaipur City No. 9, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 3,86,052/- to the respondents-claimants No. 3 to 5, for the death of Ramkaran. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.03.1999, when Ramkaran was going to his field, a Maruti Van, bearing Registration No. RJ-14 C 9784, being driven rashly and negligently came and hit him from the back. Consequently, he suffered grievous injuries; subsequently, he expired. The claimants filed a claim petition. In order to buttress their case, they examined three witnesses, and submitted few documents. On the other hand, the respondents also examined four witnesses. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Moreover, the learned Tribunal held the present appellant and Naim Ahmed (the respondent No. 2 before this Court), as severely and jointly liable for payment of compensation amount to the claimants-respondents No. 3 to 5. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

Mr. N.K. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant had already sold the offending vehicle, namely Maruti Van, on 5.11.1996 to one Moinuddin. At the time of sale of said vehicle they have taken a delivery note from Moinuddin. Subsequently, Moinuddin sold the said vehicle to Naim Ahmed. Thus, on the date of accident i.e. 9.3.1999, the vehicle was under the control of Naim Ahmed. In fact, Om Prakash, the driver was his employee, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the liability to pay the compensation would be on Naim Ahmed and Om Prakash. Hence, the learned Tribunal has erred in imposing the liability upon the appellant. Secondly, the sale of a vehicle is not covered under the Transfer of Property Act, but is covered under the Sales of Goods Act. Once the vehicle was sold by the appellant to Moinuddin, the said vehicle was not under his possession or control. Thus, he cannot be held liable for payment of the compensation amount. In order to buttress his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Dewalal and Others, and on Guru Govekar vs. Miss Filomena F. Lobo & Ors. ( II (1998) ACC 625).

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award and considered the case law cited at the Bar.

The word "owner" has been defined in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (''the Act'' in short). The definition is as under:-

2(30)-"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.

A bare perusal of the definition clearly reveals that it can be divided into three parts, firstly, a person in whose name motor stands registered, shall be considered as the owner of the vehicle. Secondly, if the vehicle stands in the name of a person who is minor, then the guardian shall be considered as the owner of the vehicle. Thirdly, if the motor vehicle is subject to hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in whose possession the vehicle is shall be considered as the owner.

Admittedly, when the appellant sold the vehicle to Moinuddin on 5.11.1996, he merely received a delivery note. But the registration of the said vehicle was not changed in the name of Moinuddin. In fact, the registration of the vehicle continued to be in the name of the appellant. Even on the date of the accident, i.e. On 9.3.1999, the vehicle stood registered in the appellant''s name. It is not the case of the appellant that the vehicle was either registered in the name of minor, or it was a subject matter of agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation or a hire-purchase agreement. Thus, according to the definition given in Section 2(30) of the Act, since the vehicle stood registered in the name of appellant, obviously, he would be treated as "the owner" of the vehicle. Needless to say that the Act makes "the owner" of the vehicle responsible for payment of the compensation to the claimants. Thus, the appellant certainly would be liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

However, the learned Tribunal has also noticed the fact that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was in the possession and under the control of Naim Ahmed. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has also held Naim Ahmed as jointly responsible for payment of the compensation amount. Hence, the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with.

The case of M/s. Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra), does not buttress the case of the appellant. For, in the said case, two issues had been addressed besides others, namely whether the sale of motor vehicle is governed by the Transfer of Property Act or by the Sales of Goods Act? To this issue, this Court had clearly expressed its opinion that such sale would be governed by the provision of Sales of Goods Act and not by the Transfer of Property Act. However, the said issue does not arise in the present case. Therefore, the opinion expressed by this Court in the said case is irrelevant to the present controversy. The second issue raised in the said case was whether an endorsement for transfer of vehicle in the registration record is a condition precedent for effecting the transfer or not. However, even this issue is not involved in the present case. Hence, the case of M/s. Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) is immaterial for resolving the controversy before this Court.

The case of Guru Govekar (supra), in fact, dilutes the stand being taken by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the case of Guru Govekar (supra), the owner had left his vehicle for repair with a car-mechanic. One of the employee of the car-mechanic had taken the car out. When the car was taken out, the car met with an accident. Therefore, the issue arose whether the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation or not. It is, in this background, that the Hon''ble Apex Court opined that even if the owner had given the car to car-mechanic, he would still continue to be responsible for the accident. Hence, the Insurance Company certainly would be liable to pay the compensation. However, the fact of the present case are totally different. Therefore, the observations made by the Hon''ble Apex Court are inapplicable to the present case. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the appeal is, hereby, dismissed.