Delhi High Court
Urmila vs Sushma & Ors on 8 February, 2016
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 8th February, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 1125/2012 & CM APPL. 18050/2012, 20075/2014
URMILA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Saurabh Upadhyay, Adv.
versus
SUSHMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. In the claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) taken out on 19.10.2006 before the
motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) by the respondent nos.1 to
3 (respondents herein), registered as MACT case no.1174/2006, the
appellant herein was impleaded as second respondent on the plea that
she was the registered owner of motor vehicle described as motorcycle
bearing registration no.DL-3ST-9655 (the offending vehicle) on
11.08.2006 when an accident occurred involving the said offending
vehicle colliding another motorcycle driven by Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj
who died as a result of injuries suffered. It was alleged that the fifth
respondent herein was driver of the offending vehicle. It appears that
the offending vehicle was not insured against the third party risk during
the relevant period as no insurer was impleaded nor any contention to
that effect urged by any of the parties involved.
2. The appellant in the course of contest took the plea that she had
already sold the offending vehicle to the fifth respondent herein prior to
the date of accident. She led evidence, inter-alia, by examining herself
(as R2W1) and also examined her brother-in-law Rajesh Kumar (as
R2W2). The tribunal noted the contentions and the evidence, inter-alia,
led through the said two witnesses at length (in para nos.11 & 12 of) the
impugned judgment dated 30.05.2012 whereby the claim petition was
decided. It needs to be noted that the evidence adduced on behalf of the
appellant was to the effect that the offending vehicle had been sold on
07.02.2005, for consideration, to the fifth respondent herein against due
delivery of the registration paper and Form nos.29 & 30 besides formal
intimation to the transport authority on 09.02.2005 in terms of Section
50 of the MV Act.
3. The tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of `37,57,500/-
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the petition
(19.10.2006) till realization.
4. Against the above backdrop, the tribunal held both the appellant
and the fifth respondent herein (respondent nos.1 & 2 before the
tribunal) jointly and severally liable on the basis of following
reasoning:-
"Respondents could not bring on record any evidence to point out
that they are not liable to pay compensation amount as assessed
by the court or any term or condition of the insurance policy was
breached by the insured or it has any limited liability. However,
R2W3 deposed that particulars of the vehicle in question were
existed in the name of respondent no.2 i.e. Smt. Urmila on the
date of accident because the transferee of vehicle has not applied
for transfer of the vehicle in question in his name. Keeping in
view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent nos.1 & 2
are jointly and severally become entitled to pay entire
compensation amount in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case cited as 2003 ACJ1950."
5. It appears that the tribunal's approach was wholly erroneous and
misdirected. It failed to bear in mind that it was nobody's case that
there was an insurance cover against third party risk for the relevant
period. It failed to adjudicate on the contention of the appellant that she
was not liable once she had transferred the vehicle in favour of the fifth
respondent herein. It failed to apply its mind to the evidence led with
regard to her claim as to due compliance with requirements of Section
50 of MV Act and rules framed under the said law.
6. In above facts and circumstances, the finding returned fastening
liability on the appellant cannot be upheld. The issue requires proper
adjudication. Thus, the appeal to the extent it challenges the impugned
judgment dated 30.05.2012 against the appellant to be jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation in favour of the claimant is set
aside. The matter arising out of the aforestated contention is remitted to
the tribunal for proper adjudication.
7. Given the old pendency of the claim and the fact that the vehicle
was not insured and since no amount has been released or realized till
date, the tribunal is requested to conclude the short inquiry hereby
remitted expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of
appearance hereby fixed.
8. For removal of doubts, it is clarified that this order shall not be
construed as vacating the direction against the fifth respondent herein to
pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal and the claimants are at
liberty to take out appropriate execution petition to enforce the same.
9. The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 04th
April, 2016 for further proceedings in accordance with law.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
11. Trial court record be returned with a copy of this judgment.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 08, 2016/ssc
