Bombay High Court
Shehkar Purshottam Shende vs Smt. Manisha Sureshrao Sable And 5 ... on 6 May, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
fa267.16.J.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.267 OF 2016
Shekhar Purshottam Shende
Aged about 35 years,
Occ: Business, R/o Hanuman Ward,
Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat,
District Wardha. ....... APPELLANT
ig ...V E R S U S...
1] Smt. Manisha Sureshrao Sable,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ: Household.
2] Saurabh s/o Sureshrao Sable,
Aged about 10 years,
Occ: Education.
3] Harshal Suresh Sable,
Aged about 8 years,
Occ: Education.
Resp. 2 & 3 being minor through
natural guardian mother Smt. Manisha
wd/o Suresh Sable.
4] Shri Anyaji s/o Balaji Sable
Aged about 70 years,
Occ: Nil.
All 1 to 4 R/o Village Karul
Tah. Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha.
5] Raju Narayanrao Gowarkar
Aged about 28 years,
Occ: Driver, At village Sakhra,
Post Karul, Tah. Samudrapur,
District Wardha.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:09:04 :::
fa267.16.J.odt 2/7
6] Rahul Domaji Patil,
Major, Occ: Private Business,
R/o Vir Bhagat Singh Ward,
Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.G. Modak, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.J. Wankhede, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
None for Respondent No.5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER: 5 th
MAY, 2016.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER: 6 MAY, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] In Motor Accident Claim Petition No.125 of 2009 filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal at Wardha has passed an award of compensation for an amount
of Rs.10,19,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of application till its realization on account of the death of one
Suresh s/o Anyaji Sable, caused as a result of accident which occurred on
03.08.2009. The appellant, who is said to be the subsequent purchaser of
the offending vehicle bearing registration No.MH-29 B-1182, has been
held jointly and severally liable along with the registered owner of the
vehicle, who is respondent No.3 - Rahul s/o Domaji Patil and the
respondent No.2 - Raju s/o Narayanrao Gowarkar, the driver of the
offending vehicle. The appellant challenges the award of the Tribunal
and seeks exoneration from the liability to pay the compensation.
fa267.16.J.odt 3/7
2] The facts not in dispute are as as under:
The deceased Suresh s/o Anyaji Sable, aged about 37 years
was travelling in a Trax (a four wheeler vehicle) bearing registration
No.MH-29 B-1182. The vehicle was driven by one Raju s/o Narayanrao
Gowarkar - the respondent No.3 herein. During the course of travel on
03.08.2009 the vehicle turned turtle near canal of Potra Project.
The deceased sitting in the vehicle sustained grievous injuries and died
on the spot. The respondent No.6 - Rahul s/o Domaji Patil was the
registered owner of the said vehicle on the date of occurrence of the
accident and the vehicle was not insured. On the basis of the information
supplied in Form-AA maintained under Rule 253 (c) of the Maharashtra
Motor Vehicle Rules, the appellant - Shekhar Purushottam Shende was
joined as the sole respondent initially in the claim petition. The appellant
filed his written statement and pointed out that it is the respondent
No. 6 - Rahul s/o Domaji Patil, who is the registered owner of the
vehicle. Hence, accordingly by way of an amendment the registered
owner was joined as party respondent No.3 in the claim petition.
3] The Tribunal recorded the finding that the respondent No. 5
- Raju Narayanrao Gowarkar was the driver of the offending vehicle and
he was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle which resulted in an
accident causing the death of Suresh. This finding recorded by the
fa267.16.J.odt 4/7
Tribunal is not the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. The only
challenge in this appeal filed by the appellant is that it is the respondent
No.6 - Rahul s/o Domaji Patil, who is the registered owner of the
offending vehicle vicariously liable to pay the amount of compensation
for the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the said
vehicle. According to the appellant, he was not the registered owner on
the date of the occurrence of the accident on 03.08.2009 and that he had
not engaged the respondent No. 5 - the driver of the offending vehicle to
drive the said vehicle. There is no challenge to the findings recorded on
the quantum of compensation awarded.
4] The only point for determination is as under:
Whether the appellant, who is not the registered owner
of the offending vehicle can be held jointly and severally
liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicle Act?
5] The Tribunal has relied upon the contents of Form-AA
supplied under Rule 253 (c) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules
and the statement of the respondent No.5 the driver of the offending
vehicle contained in the FIR to the effect that it is the appellant, who was
fa267.16.J.odt 5/7
the owner of the vehicle and that he was the driver employed on the
vehicle. Shri Modak, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the documents namely Form-AA and the FIR cannot be relied upon
unless those documents are proved, to fasten the liability upon the
appellant who is not the registered owner of the vehicle. He has placed
reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of Narayan Kalangutkar
and another vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in
2012(2) Mh.L.J. 803, for the proposition that mere production of FIR or
mere fact that the charge-sheet was filed against the driver would not by
itself be sufficient to hold that there was a rash and negligent driving on
the part of the driver. The reliance is placed upon the decision of the
Apex Court in Pushpa Alias Leela and others vs. Shakuntala and others
reported in (2011) 2 SCC 240, to urge that the appellant may be
considered to be the owner of the vehicle under the civil law on the basis
of possession of the vehicle, but he cannot be held liable to a third party
in the liability arising under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. As
against this learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, the
claimants has urged that the ownership of the appellant has been
established on the basis of contents of Form-AA and the statement of the
driver contained in the FIR. According to him, the appellant being found
in actual possession of the vehicle was rightly held liable by the Tribunal.
6] Shri Modak, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
fa267.16.J.odt 6/7
has seriously disputed the fact that the appellant has purchased the said
vehicle from the registered owner and that the respondent No.5 - Raju
Narayanrao Gowarkar was employed by him as a driver over the
offending vehicle. It is not necessary for me to go into such a dispute in
the proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and such a
dispute can be left open to be agitated in the appropriate proceedings by
the parties concerned.
7]
The decision of the Apex Court in case of Pushpa alias Leela
and others vs. Shakuntala and others relied upon by Shri Modak puts an
end to the entire controversy involved in the matter. It makes clear
distinction between the civil liability and the liability arising out of the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is the consistent view of the Apex
Court that there can be a transfer of the vehicle upon payment of
consideration and delivery of the vehicle. However, it is only the
registered owner of the vehicle liable to a third party in the claim arising
out of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is the person whose
name is recorded as registered owner in the records of RTO, who can be
held liable to make the payment of compensation. In view of this, it is
open for the registered owner of the vehicle to recover the amount of
compensation from the appellant by instituting civil proceedings. It is not
permissible under the provisions of the Act to hold the appellant jointly
and severally along with the respondent Nos.2 and 3 liable to pay the
fa267.16.J.odt 7/7
amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
8] In view of above, the present appeal is allowed and the
following order is passed:
[i] The award dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha in M.A.C.P. No.125
of 2009, is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent
igit holds the appellant liable to pay jointly and
severally along with the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to
pay the amount of compensation along with interest
at the rate of 9% per annum.
[ii] The Claim Petition No.125 of 2009 is dismissed
against the appellant.
[iii] The respondent Nos.5 and 6 have not preferred any
appeal before this Court till this date, and hence the
award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
in M.A.C.P. No.125 of 2009 to the extent it operates
against them shall remain as it is. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE
NSN
