Nikhil Kinha vs Attar Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—The claim petition brought by Nikhil Kinha, the appellant has been dismissed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 17.11.2008. The claim petition of the appellant-claimant was dismissed for the reasons that he was not the registered owner of the vehicle and was not entitled to compensation for the damage suffered by the car in the accident. Aggrieved by this award, the present appeal has been filed by him. On 11.05.2005 the claimant alongwith his friend Gaurav was going from Faridabad to Rohtak in his Escort Ford car bearing registration No. HR-18-5678. At about 3.15 PM when they were in front of R.R. Line, Near Police Pocket ahead of Dhaula Kuan, the police was checking the vehicles. A truck of BSF was standing in the queue. Gaurav stopped the car behind the truck of BSF. In the meanwhile, a DTC bus bearing registration No. DL-1PA-7912 came from their back side at a very fast speed and in a negligent manner and had hit into their car, which was stationery at that time. The car was badly damaged. The damage to the car was got assessed from Satish Kumar Gupta & Co., Loss Assessor & Surveyor, Delhi, who assessed the loss at Rs. 3,00,000/-.

The claim petition is resisted by the respondents. They have denied the ownership of the vehicle of the claimant as well as the extent of damage suffered by the car or his entitlement to recover Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation.

Having the respondents challenging the status of the claimant as registered owner of the damaged car and his competence to prefer the claim petition, learned Tribunal considered the evidence on record and on the admission of the claimant that on the date of the accident, he was not the registered owner of the car, it was held that he had no locus-standi or cause of action to file the claim petition. Consequently the claim petition has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that though the appellant was not the registered owner of the car yet he was a purchaser of the car from the registered owner. According to him, Mark A is the affidavit given to the claimant by the registered owner regarding sale of the car to him. He has further submitted that registration of the vehicle in the name of the claimant was not the pre-requisite for making a claim with regard to damage suffered by the car. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Hukam Singh Vs. Janak Steel Tubes Ltd., . It was a case where the claimant purchased the tractor, which was damaged in the accident before the registration was transferred in his name. The claimant was held entitled to maintain the claim. He has also cited before me a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Panna Lal Vs. Shri Chand Mal and Others, . It was a case where owner of a vehicle sold the same to the transferee. The registration papers and sale memo had been handed over to the transferee. The registration however, continued in the owner''s name. The transferee failed to move the registration authority to transfer. The question as to whether the sale was ineffective and transferee can claim refund of the purchase money or damages from the owner was answered in the negative.

There is no dispute that if the vehicle has been sold by the registered owner, the transferee would be entitled to make a claim for compensation for the damage suffered by the vehicle. Transfer of a vehicle is complete on receipt of the sale consideration and delivery of possession. Entry in the registration certificate of the name of the transferee is not a pre-requisite to the transfer of ownership rights in a car. However, the case here is different. Here the claimant tried to prove the transfer by way of an affidavit Mark A, which is not proved on the record. He did not even examine the registered owner to prove that he had sold the vehicle to the claimant. In the absence of the evidence to prove the affidavit Mark A or any other evidence to prove that the vehicle was sold i.e. sale consideration was paid and possession was delivered to the claimant, it could not be said that the claimant is the owner-transferee of the vehicle. Learned Tribunal has, thus, been right in holding that the claimant has failed to prove himself to be the owner of the vehicle and, thus, he has no cause of action and locus standi to file the petition. In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.