B.C. Goswami vs Amisha Jindal & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 422 Del

$~3
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 20th January, 2012
+        MAC. APP. No.746/2011

         B.C. GOSWAMI                                  ..... Appellant
                                 Through:   Mr. Vikas Yadav, Adv.

                        versus

         AMISHA JINDAL & ORS.                             ..... Respondents
                      Through:              None.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                 JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant challenges the impugned award on the ground that in this case the accident took place on 18.06.2006 whereas he had transferred the Matiz Car No.DL-3CQ-4853 involved in the accident in favour of Sanjay Chopra on 30.11.2005 and said Mr. Sanjay Chopra further sold this car to Respondent No.1 Shambhu Das on 10.06.2006. It is not disputed by the Appellant that he was the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident. As per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act the owner and driver are primarily liable to pay the compensation. As per Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) "Owner" means a person in whose name the motor

vehicle stands registered, etc. No intimation of transfer of the vehicle was sent to the Registering Authority as required under Section 50 of the Act. Of course, the rightful owner also cannot escape liability. In the case of Dr. T. V. Jose v. Chako P.M. @ Thankachan and Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 748, it was held that registered owner as well as rightful owner will be liable as far as the third party is concerned. In this case Respondent No.2 Shambhu Das was the rightful owner and driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Both the Appellant i.e. registered owner and Respondent No.2 Shambhu Das the rightful owner have been made liable to pay the compensation awarded in the case. No fault can be found with the impugned award; there is no ground to interfere with the same.

2. The Appeal is dismissed in limine.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 20, 2012 hs