Radhakrishna vs Dwarka Prasad and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The appellant has challenged the award dated 18.8.2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, whereby the learned Judge has granted a compensation of Rs. 1,88,088/- to the respondent-claimants for the death of their son Ashok Kumar. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.11.2005 around 4:30 PM when Ashok Kumar was riding a scooter, bearing registration No. RJ14-33M-4911, suddenly a motorcycle, bearing registration No. RJ30-M-1434, being driven rashly and negligently, came and hit the scooter. Consequently, Ashok Kumar suffered grievous injuries. Subsequently he expired. His parents filed a claim petition against the appellant, against the driver, against M/s. Siddharth Polyzink P. Ltd. and against the Insurance Company. During the pendency of the claim petition, by order dated 12.8.2008, respondent No. 3 M/s. Siddharth Polyzink P. Ltd. and the Insurance Company were deleted from the array of respondents and the claim petition was continued only against the driver and the present appellant.

In order to prove their case, the claimant-respondents examined two witnesses and submitted fourteen documents. The driver Nehnuram examined himself as a witness and submitted four documents. However, despite the service of notice upon the present appellant, he did not appear before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, proceedings were carried ex-parte against him. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation as aforementioned. Hence this appeal before this Court.

Mr. J.P. Asiwal, the learned counsel for appellant, has vehemently contended that he is merely a registered owner on paper. However, he had sold the motorcycle to others who had eventually sold it to Nehnuram. Therefore, he has no concern with the offending vehicle. Secondly, that the award has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. Therefore, the case should be remanded to the learned Tribunal for giving him an opportunity of hearing.

On the other hand, Mr. Amarnath Pareek, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that according to the Motor Vehicles Act, the registered owner is liable for the payment of compensation. In the present case, the claimants have already been paid the amount under the ESI Act, as the deceased was working under respondent No. 3 M/s. Siddharth Polyzink P. Ltd., therefore, the Company as well as the Insurance Company were exonerated. Since the appellant happens to be the registered owner, therefore, he has rightly been held to be liable for payment of the compensation amount. Moreover, his liability is both, severally and jointly with liability of Nehnuram, who claims to be de facto owner of the offending vehicle. Secondly, since the notices were issued to the appellant, since he chose not to appear before the Tribunal, he cannot plead that principles of natural justice have been violated by the learned Tribunal.

Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned award.

According to the Motor Vehicles Act, the word "owner" has been defined in Section 2 sub-clause (30) 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;

Therefore, the registered owner of the vehicle is responsible for paying the compensation amount to the claimant. Even if the appellant had sold the vehicle to others, but according to the registration papers he continued to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, he cannot escape his responsibility for paying the compensation amount to the claimants.

Since notice was issued to him, since he chose not to appear and to contest the matter before the learned Tribunal, obviously the learned Tribunal had no other option, but to proceed ex-parte against him. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant is unjustified in claiming that an opportunity of hearing has not been given to the appellant. Once an opportunity of hearing was given, once the appellant chose not to respond to the opportunity, he cannot pray that the case should be remanded to the Tribunal. For it is a settled principle of law that those who sleep over their rights, cannot expect the Court to rush to their rescue. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award dated 18.8.2008. This appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.