Manjitsingh Sarmukhsingh vs Ramesh Hurne And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 9573 Bom

                                            1
                                                                         690.04FA

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO.690 OF 2004


          Manjeetsingh Sarmukh Singh
          aged 45 years, Occupation Business
          Resident of Sant Kripa market
          G.G.Road, Nanded.                     .. APPELLANT
                                        [Original Respondent No.1]

                       VERSUS


          1]       Ramesh s/o. Vishwanathrao Hurne
                   aged 49 Years Occupation business
                   Resident of Somesh colony, Nanded.

          2]       Mangalabai w/o. Ramesh Hurne,
                   aged 44 Years, Occupation Household
                   Resident of Nanded.

          3]       Dadamiyan alias Lalsha s/o.
                   Saranshah aged 30 Years
                   Occupation driver
                   Resident of Hatani Taluka Kandhar
                   District Nanded.

          4]       Sk. Shadulla s/o. Sk. Dade,
                   aged 40 Years Occupation driver
                   Resident of New Mondha, Nanded
                                                        .. RESPONDENTS
                                      ...
          Mrs.A.N.Ansari, Advocate for the appellant.
          Mr.G.N.Chincholkar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.
                                      ...




::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022                     ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 05:26:59 :::
                                              2
                                                                            690.04FA




                                       CORAM : S.G.DIGE, J.

                                       Reserved on : 10.08.2022
                                       Pronounced on : 21.09.2022

          JUDGMENT :

1] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the

judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Nanded, the appellant - original respondent no.1

has preferred this appeal.

Brief facts of the case are as under :-

2] On 2nd November, 1993 at about 10.20 a.m. the

deceased Abhishek was returning from his school on his

bicycle. At the relevant time the offending truck gave dash

to his bicycle. Abhishek was fatally injured and died on the

spot. Crime was registered against the driver of the

offending truck.

3] Respondent nos.1 and 2 [original claimants]

filed claim petition for getting compensation before the

690.04FA

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded [for short 'the

Tribunal']. Considering the evidence on record and after

hearing the parties, the Tribunal has awarded the

compensation. Against the said judgment and order, this

appeal.

4] The issues involved in this appeal are the

compensation given by the Tribunal is on higher side

though the deceased was 12 years old and the offending

truck was transferred by the appellant to respondent no.4. I

deal with these issues one by one.

5] Compensation awarded on higher side :

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant that the deceased was 12 years old. He was

not having any income source, in spite of that, the Tribunal

has considered notional income of deceased boy of

Rs.24,000/- per year and has awarded the total

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is exorbitant

compensation. Whereas it is the contention of the learned

690.04FA

counsel for respondents that Abhishek was brilliant boy. He

could have became an Engineer or Doctor. Respondent no.1

is B.E. [Mechanical] and runs a Oil Mill in Shivajinagar,

Nanded. The family background of Abhishek is sound,

hence, income considered by the Tribunal is proper.

6] I have perused the judgment and order passed

by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has observed that the

deceased Abhishek was student of a reputed English

medium school. Father of the deceased i.e. respondent no.1

is a Mechanical Engineer. He runs a Oil mill. Considering

the family background of deceased Abhishek might have

taken higher education and deceased Abhishek had

potentials to become a good professional. Accordingly, the

Tribunal has considered his income as Rs.24,000/- p.a., in

my view, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan

Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another Vs. Shyam Kishore

Murmu and another reported in 2022 [1] SCC 317 has held

that in case of the death of a boy during age 10 to 15 years,

notional income should be considered as Rs.25,000/- p.a. In

690.04FA

the present case, the Tribunal has considered Rs.24,000/-

p.a., which is proper and income considered by the Tribunal

is not on higher side.

7] In respect of issue of transfer of vehicle :

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant that the appellant had transferred the

offending vehicle to Sk.Shadulla Sk.Dade i.e. respondent

no.4. The truck vehicle was given to Sk.Shadullla for a

period of one year on contractual basis and agreement in

that regard was executed in between the appellant and

respondent no.4. Hence liability of paying compensation

would not come on appellant but this fact was not

considered by the Tribunal. In my view, without valid

transfer of the vehicle or vehicle given on contractual basis

cannot shift liability from shoulder of registered owner of

vehicle. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act states about

transfer of ownership. This section provides that transfer of

ownership of vehicle shall report to the registering authority

within stipulated time. In the present case, vehicle was

690.04FA

given on contractual basis. No report was given to the

registering authority. At the time of accident, the offending

vehicle was in the name of appellant, unless it is proved

that the registered owner has ceased to be the owner of the

vehicle. He continues to be liable in the event of accident

for the claim of third parties. The transfer of the ownership

of vehicle cannot be effected unless it is communicated to

the Regional Transport Office. Hence, the appellant is liable

to pay compensation.

8] In view of the above, I pass the following

order:-

ORDER

i] Appeal is dismissed.

          ii]              No order as to costs.


          iii]             Respondent nos.1 and 2 are entitled for

withdrawal of the amount, if not withdrawn, deposited by the appellant.

iv] First Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

690.04FA

v] In view of disposal of appeal, all pending civil applications are also disposed of.

[S.G.DIGE] JUDGE

DDC