J-fa678.17.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.678 OF 2017
Shashank s/o. Jairam Kamdi,
Age 44 years,
Occupation : Lawyer,
R/o. Plot No.46, Santaji Society,
Narendra Nagar, Nagpur-440015. : APPELLANA
...VERSUS...
1. Homeshwar s/o. Sudam Fasate,
Aged 50 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Raghuji Nagar, New Kamgar Kalyan Kendra,
Quarter No.6/35, Nagpur.
2. Ashish s/o. Rajesh Dupare,
Age 28 years,
R/o. Behind Ingale Bhavan,
Siraspeth, Nagpur.
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
RTO (City), Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri , Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th DATE : 10 JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:16:56 :::
J-fa678.17.odt 2/3
2. Admit. Heard finally in terms of order passed on 12 th June, 2017.
3. From the facts prima facie placed on record, an impression is created that one motor-cycle involved in the accident bearing registration No.MH-31-BK-4430 was actually transferred to the respondent No.2 on 2.1.2012 and from that date onwards, he had prima facie become the owner of the motor-cycle in question. Learned Member of the Tribunal, however, relying upon the law laid down in the cases of Oriental Insurance vs. Smt. Pushpa, reported in 2015(1) TAC Bombay, and HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Ku. Reshma and others, reported in 2015(6) Mh.L.J. 51, found that it is only the registered owner, who is the owner for the purposes of the liability arising out of the claims filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. While there can be no dispute about the principle of law laid down in these cases, the question that arises is as to whether or not this principle of law has been applied properly to the facts of the case.
4. At this stage, having considered the copies of the registration certificate, in particular the endorsement appearing below the document entitled registration particulars, I find that the question of the registered ownership has been quite clearly answered. But, the learned Member rejected the contention of the appellant that he was no longer registered owner of the vehicle in question at the time of accident only on the ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:16:56 ::: J-fa678.17.odt 3/3 ground that the original registration particulars or certified copy of the registration certificate were not placed on record. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in possession of the certified copy of the registration particulars and he seeks leave of this Court to produce the same on record of the case so that a proper adjudication regarding the factum of the appellant being or not being registered owner of the vehicle in question could be properly made.
5. In view of above, this appeal deserves to be allowed and it is allowed accordingly.
6. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
7. The appeal is remitted back to the trial Court for considering afresh the application vide Exh.-5 in accordance with law.
8. Leave to file on record certified copy of the registration particulars is granted to the appellant.
9. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 24 th July, 2017 and the Tribunal shall thereafter endeavour to dispose of this application within two months.
10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
11. The parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:16:56 :::