Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Foolmati

R.L. Jhanwar, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.10.2.009 passed by the Additional Motor accidents Claims Tribunal. Pendra road in Claim Case No. 07/2009 whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- as total compensation in a death case. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on fateful day of 10.03.2008 respondent No. 4 was going on motorcycle bearing No. C.G. 10. B.A./4537 along with the deceased Akasu, who was sitting as pillion rider on the same motor cycle. On way at village Katra respondent No. 1 dashed one Umesh Kumar and fled from the spot. In that event he was driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, Akasu, who was found to have been sitting as pillion rider, fell down and got injuries and thereafter he due to injuries.

On account of death Akasu, his legal representatives preferred a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-.

By filing written statement, respondent No. 4 Chandrika Prasad denied the averments made in claim petition. It was specifically pleaded that when he was going to Marwahi along with Akasu, on way at village Katra, one boy namely Umesh suddenly came before the motor cycle and got simple injuries and in the meantime, one Gulab Singh and some women chased to catch them and during that process he drove the motor cycle towards Marwahi; then one Mahesh Gupta pelted stone which hit Akasu and caused injury on his head, as result of which, death of Akasu took place and not due to accident.

On the other hand, applicant (respondent No. 2) before the Tribunal) by filling written statement also denied the averment made in claim petition. He has specifically pleaded that prior to the accident, respondent No. 4 Chandrika Prasad purchased the said motor cycle and in this connection he also executed one agreement before Notary. It was specifically pleaded that respondent No. 4 Chandrika Prasad also signed on From No. 29 and Form No. 30, relating to transfer of ownership of the motorcycle. Since ownership of the motorcycle has been transferred, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

All parties led their evidence before the. Tribunal and the Tribunal, on close scrutiny of evidence and material documents available on record and respective submissions made by the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filling of claim petition till its realization. The Tribunal while holding that on the date of accident, the appellant was owner of the said motorcycle has fastened the liability to pay compensation to the claimants. It is this order, which is under challenge by the appellant-Sunil Sharma.

Shri Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the offending motor cycle was registered in the name of the appellant. The accident took place on 10.03.2008 and prior to the accident the appellant has sold the said offering motorcycle No. C.G. 10 BA 4537 to Chandrika Prasad. Respondent No. 4 herein. On 13.01.2006 in this connection one agreement was executed by both the parties and in that agreement it was written that Chandrika Prasad will get the motor cycle registered in his name. It has also been written therein that the appellant (seller) will not be responsible for any accident or any legal proceeding and the appellant signed on transfer application form No. 29 & 30 and handed over the possession of the motor cycle to the purchaser Chandrika Prasad but Chandrika Prasad did not get his name registered. He also argued that the accident took place due to the negligence driving of Chandrika Prasad and at the time of accident since the offending motor cycle was in possession of Chandrika Prasad and according to agreement. Chandrika Prasad was owner of that offending motor cycle, therefore, on the date of accident, he was not the owner of that offending motor cycle,. Therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability to pay compensation on him, which is not in accordance with law. No other point was urged. On these premises, he urged that the appeal should be allowed.

On the other hand, Shri Dashrath Prajapati, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 supported the impugned order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the Tribunal including impugned order.

In the present case, on perusal of evidence and material documents available on record, it is clear the appellant is the original owner of the said affording motor cycle and the appellant has already sold the said affording motor cycle prior to the accident to respondent No. 4 and an agreement thereof has even been executed by both the parties. Even then responding No. 4 did not get his named registered before the registering authority. Therefore, the registration of the offending motor cycle still remains in the name of the seller i.e. present appellate. The main question that remains for determination in this case is whether the registered owner is liable or the owner who has purchased the motor cycle without getting his name registered with the registering authority? Before dealing with the question involved herein, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant provisions of the Motor vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'' of 1988).

Section 168 of the Act of 1998 deals with the award of the Claims Tribunal. The text of Section 168 of the Act of 1988 reads as under:-

Awards of the claims Tribunal (1) On receipt of an application for compensation made u/s 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case my be, each or the claims and subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appreciation it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the ward the tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner of driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be:

Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation u/s 140 in a respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in a respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X.

(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.

(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay and amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct." Sub-section (30) of Section 2 of the Act of 1988 defines ''owner'' which read 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 a agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.

Sub-section (1) and (3) of section 50 of the act ibid provide for the manner in which ''transfer of ownership shall take place and reads thus'' 50. Transfer of ownership (1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred-

(a) The transferor shall -

(b) (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 of the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of a 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 u/s 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 acknowledgment by the transferee if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgment 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, as 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 particular of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.

(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 subsection (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 case, require the transfer 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 u/s 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under sub-section (5); Provided that action u/s 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.

Section 168 of the Act provides that the Tribunal on an application filed u/s 166 of the Act compensations shall after enquiring into the claim, etc., may make an award determining the amount of compensation specifying the person to whom such compensation shall be paid. It shall also specify while making the award as to the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or the owner or the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or all or any of them. In case, the offending vehicle is not insured, then in that situation, the owner or the driver of the said vehicle shall be made lible to pay the awarded amount. The word ''woner'' as defined u/s 2(30) of the Act of 1998 would mean such a person in whose name the vehicle stands registered. Section 50 of the Act provides for various requirements of law which are required to be observed before the vehicle would stands registered from transferor to the transferee and the registration certificate amended incorporating such change.

A combined reading of the aforesaid provision would clearly show that the owner is a person in whose name a the motor vehicle stands registered with the registering authority and the transfer of the vehicle takes place only when the requirements prescribed under the Act have been compiled with the registering authority and who enters the same in its record.

Therefore, it is held that reference to ''owner'' in section 168 of the Act of 1988 is to a the registered owner of the vehicle.

The Apex Court in Dr. T.V. Jose Vs. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and Others, , in paragraph 10 had held that an owner continued to remain liable to third parties as his name had not been changed in the records of the R.T.O. It further held that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the vehicle, but and owner still continues to remain liable to third parties as long as his name continued in the record of the R.T.O. as the owner. The Supreme Court further observed that owner could adopt appropriate proceedings against the vendee if, in law, he was entitled to do so.

In view of the above, it cannot be said that the appellant was not liable to pay compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. Once it is found that the appellant cannot escape his liability to pay compensation, there is no merit in this appeal. However, it shall be open to the appellant to a take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against at he vendee. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be and is herby dismissed, No Order as to costs.