Bombay High Court
Satish Sopanrao Ronge vs Eknath Bala Khatal (Died) Thr Lrs Dagdu ... on 12 January, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:1102
-1-
fa2925.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2925 OF 2018
Satish s/o Sopanrao Ronge
age 40, occ. Driver
r/o Jawalga, Tq. Renapur
Dist. Latur. .. Appellant
Versus
Eknath s/o Balal Khatal (died)
through LRs
1. Dagdu s/o Eknath Khatal
age 30 years, occ. Driver
2. Madhukar s/o Eknath Khatal
age 28 years, occ. Nil
3. Sudhakar s/o Eknath Khatal
age 22 years, occ. Nil
All r/o Jawalga, Tq. Renapur
Dist. Latur.
4. Ganpat s/o Bhujangrao Chavan
age major, occ.nil
r/o Yeshwantwadi, Tq. Renapur
Dist. Latur
5. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Branch Manager
Gayatri Krupa, Chandra Nagar
Ukka Marg, Latur
Tq. & Dist. Latur .. Respondents
Mr. S. C. Swami, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. N. D. Kendre, Advocate holding for Mr. U. L. Momale, Advocate for
respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. N. B. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
Mr. S. R. Bodade, Advocate for respondent No. 5.
-2-
fa2925.18.odt
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 12th JANUARY, 2024.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit. By consent, heard finally at admission stage.
3. This appeal is filed raising limited question as to whether
the appellant/respondent no. 3 can be held liable for payment of
compensation to the claimants as done by learned Tribunal by
passing impugned award in MACP No. 102/2010.
4. In connection with an accident occurred on 11 th March,
2017 involving tempo bearing registration No. MH 24 A 2837, claim
petition bearing MACP No. 102/2010 came to be filed under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act ("MV Act" for short). The claim was initially
filed against the registered owner of the vehicle. After filing of the
written statement by registered owner to the effect that he had
already sold the vehicle to respondent No. 3, subsequently, he came
to be added as party respondent. Tribunal proceeded to frame issues
and after recording evidence, held that respondent No. 3 has
fa2925.18.odt
purchased the offending vehicle from respondent No. 1 and the
formality of its registration remained to be completed. With these
findings, both respondents No. 1 and 3 were held equally responsible
for payment of compensation.
5. Learned counsel for appellant/respondent No. 3 submits
that he is not owner of the vehicle within meaning of Section 2(30) of
Motor Vehicles Act. According to him, admittedly, the registration of
the vehicle stands in the name of respondent No. 1 and as such, the
award cannot sustain against him. In support of his submissions, he
placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others, AIR 2018 SC 983.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/registered owner of
the vehicle opposed the said contention by referring to the evidence
led before the Tribunal. According to him, evidence in the form of
receipt Exhibit 51 sufficiently demonstrates that not only the vehicle
was purchased by respondent No. 3 against payment of consideration
but possession thereof was also passed on to the buyer. He further
contends that there is evidence in order to hold that respondent No. 3
was in possession of the offending vehicle atleast three months prior
fa2925.18.odt
to the date of the accident. Thus, according to him, Tribunal
committed no error in holding this respondent liable for payment of
compensation. To support his submission, he placed reliance on
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajashtna State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Kailash Nath Kothari and others, (1997) 7
Supreme Court Cases 481.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that respondent No. 1
was registered owner of the offending vehicle as on the date of
accident. Once this fact is accepted, in view of definition of owner
under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner can be a
person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered. The
definition of 'owner' is reproduced as under :-
2 (30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor
vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a
minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a
motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase,
agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement
of hypothecation, the person in possession of the
vehicle under that agreement.
fa2925.18.odt
8. Perusal of the said definition shows that owner is the
person in whose name motor vehicle stands registered. The only
exception to the same is in case if any person is in possession of the
vehicle in an agreement of hire-purchase, agreement to lease or
agreement of hypothecation, would be treated as owner.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Naveen Kumar(supra) by
taking into consideration definition of owner and other relevant
provisions of the Act and also after taking into consideration
precedents has held that,
"11. ...... Parliament has consciously introduced the
definition of the expression 'owner' in Section 2(30),
making a departure from the provisions of Section 2(19)
in the earlier Act of 1939. The principle underlying the
provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor
accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the
deceased victim should not e left in a state of
uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to
be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers,
which are not registered with the registering authority.
To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object
and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be
placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the
law.
fa2925.18.odt
Reverting back to the facts of present case, admittedly, on
the date of accident offending vehicle stood in the name of respondent
No. 1, in the record of registration. Though respondent No. 1 has
claimed that he has sold the vehicle to respondent No. 3 but he
remained as registered owner thereof. As such, the present case is
not covered by three exceptions provided by Section 2(30). The
judgment in case of Naveen Kumar (supra) therefore squarely applies
to the present case. The judgment and the issue in case of
Rajasthan State Road Transport (supra) deals with the different facts,
whether the hirer in possession and control of the vehicle was to be
treated as owner. In view of definition of owner under Section 2(30)
of the Act, the said observations are made and the person who was
the hirer in possession and control of the vehicle was also held
vicariously liable. In respectful view of this Court, the said judgment
has no application to the present case. Since respondent No. 3 is not
registered owner of the offending vehicle as contemplated by Section
2(3) of the Act by following judgment in case of Naveen Kumar
(supra), liability to pay compensation under MV Act cannot be
fastened on him and the claim would not be tenable against him. As
such, the impugned award deserves interference to that extent.
fa2925.18.odt
10. In the result, appeal is allowed. Order passed by
Tribunal holding respondent No. 3 liable for payment of
compensation to the claimant is set aside. Except for respondent No.
3, no other party to the said litigation has challenged the said award,
hence, rest of the award has attained finality. Hence, rest of the
award remains unchanged. Statutory amount deposited be
refunded to the appellant.
( R. M. JOSHI)
Judge
dyb
