1 fa696.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 696 OF 2017
Jahir Khan s/o Hafij Khan Pathan,
aged about 52 years, Occ. Driver,
R/o. At post Palandur, Tah. Lakhani,
District Bhandara ...... APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1. Lakhan s/o Dhaneshwar Date,
aged about 16 years, Occ. Student,
through his natural guardian father
Dhaneshwar Vijay Date, aged Major,
Occ. Labour, R/o. Mouda, Tah. Mouda,
District : Nagpur.
2. Branch Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd,
Rajkamal Commercial Complex, 2nd Floor,
Panchsheel Square, Wardha Road,
Nagpur. ...... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.N.Patre, counsel for appellant
Shri P.S.Mirache, counsel assisted by Ms. M.H.Pathade, counsel for
Respondent no. 1
None for respondent No.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: S.B.SHUKRE, J.
th DATE : 16 JUNE, 2017 .
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Heard.
Admit
Record and proceedings is disposed with. ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:27:27 :::
2 fa696.17.odt Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2] This appeal takes exception to the illegality and correction of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2013 rendered in Claim Petition No. 1285 of 2006 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. 3] Shri Patre, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was never the registered owner at the time when the accident occurred involving the vehicle, a jeep, bearing Registration No.MH-35/E-273 and therefore, no liability to pay compensation could have been fastened upon the appellant. In support, he invites my attention to various documents proved in evidence, particularly the particulars of registration and the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle in question.
4] Mr. Mirache, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, assisted by Advocate Ms. M.H.Pathade, submits that the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle is a matter of record and therefore, appropriate order may be passed. ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:27:27 :::
3 fa696.17.odt
5] In view of above, following points arise for my
determination.
(I) Whether the appellant was the registered owner
of the vehicle in question at the time of the accident?
(II) Whether the impugned judgment and order are legal and proper in so far as they have the effect of fastening liability to pay compensation upon the appellant?
6] The copies of the documents proved in evidence are already forming part of the paper book in this appeal. The certificate of registration of the motor vehicle vide Exh.23 clearly shows that the vehicle in question, bearing Registration No. MH-35/E-273, was initially owned by one Israil Abdul Mazid Pathan and then it was owned by the present appellant. It further shows that the ownership of this vehicle was with the present appellant only during the period from 11.10.2004 to 03.01.2006. It further shows that from 04.01.2006 till 19.12.2006, the ownership of the vehicle in question was with one Smt. Annapurnabai Trambak Shete. In other words, during the period from 04.01.2006 to 19.12.2006, Smt. Annapurnabai Trambak Shete was the ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:27:27 ::: 4 fa696.17.odt registered owner of the vehicle in question. The accident involving this vehicle occurred on 11.11.2006. Clearly, on the date of accident, the registered owner of the vehicle in question was Smt. Annapurnabai Trambak Shete. However, this evidence, as seen from the impugned judgment and order, has been completely ignored by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. On the contrary, the learned Member has recorded a finding that admittedly the appellant was the owner of the offending vehicle, a jeep bearing Registration No. MH-35/E-273. This finding is perverse, it being not based upon the facts established on record. This would impel me to hold that the impugned judgment and order fastening liability to pay compensation upon the appellant having been passed upon the perverse finding is illegal and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside, in so far as it adversely affects the interest of the present appellant.
7] It is seen from the record of the case that the registered owner on the date of the accident was not joined as party, although it was the duty of the respondent No.1 to do so. This circumstance together with what has been found ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:27:27 ::: 5 fa696.17.odt by me earlier would necessitate remand of the matter back to the trial Court for deciding it afresh with necessary opportunity being granted to the claimant i.e. respondent No.1.
8] In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Claim Petition No. 1285 of 2006 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, for a decision afresh in accordance with law. The liberty to join the registered owner on the date of accident is granted to the claimant/respondent No.1. The name of the appellant is directed to be deleted from the array of respondents, he being not the registered owner at the relevant time.
The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant in this court, is permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant with interest, if any.
JUDGE Rvjalit ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:27:27 :::