Shashank S/O Jairam Kamdi vs Homeshwar S/O Sudam Fasate And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4263 Bom

        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.

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

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