Delhi High Court
Umesh Kumar Bhatia vs Babli Devi & Ors on 27 May, 2016
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 27.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 854/2012
UMESH KUMAR BHATIA ..... Appellant
Through None
versus
BABLI DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. S N Parashar, Adv. for R-1
Mr. J P Sharma, Adv. for R-2
Mr. R K Tripathi, Adv. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. On 22.11.2006, a motor vehicular accident occurred involving a three
wheeler scooter bearing registration No.DL 0361 (TSR) resulting in death of
Satish Kumar. The dependant family members of the deceased Satish
Kumar (first and second respondents herein) instituted an accident claim
case (MACT no.71/10/06) on 16.12.2006 seeking compensation under
Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). In the said case,
the fifth respondent (M/s Bombay Plastic Marketing Company) and the third
respondent (New India Insurance Company) were impleaded as respondents,
with the averments that the TSR was registered in the name of Umesh
Kumar and insured against third party risk with the latter. Later, by
amendment incorporated on 01.10.2007, the fourth respondent (Rohtas son
of Gopi Ram) was added as another respondent on the allegation that he was
the driver of the TSR at the time of the accident. Noticeably, in the claim
petition, the allegations were that the accident had occurred resulting in
death of Satish Kumar due to negligent driving of the TSR, the claim having
been made under Sections 166 and 140 of MV Act. The said fourth
respondent Rohtas appeared and filed a written statement denying the case
of claimants. Subsequently, by an amendment carried out in November
2009, the appellant was impleaded as yet another respondent on the
averment that he was the registered owner of the TSR on the date of
accident. The appellant appeared and filed a written statement, inter alia,
admitting that the TSR had been purchased by him from M/s Bombay
Plastic Marketing Company (fifth respondent herein), but pleaded that he
had sold it to the fourth respondent Rohtas, for consideration, on
14.03.2005. It was, thus, pleaded that on the date of the accident i.e.
22.11.2006, the TSR was owned by Rohtas and not by the appellant. It
appears from the record and the submissions made that the vehicle was
eventually registered in the name of Rohtas on 08.12.2006.
2. During the inquiry, reliance was also placed on a cover note in respect
of the TSR for the period 18.11.2006 to 17.11.2007 in the name of M/s
Bombay Plastic Marketing Company (firth respondent) which was the
erstwhile owner of the TSR and which had concededly nothing to do with
the vehicle after it had been transferred and registered in the name of the
appellant on 23.12.2004.
3. The fourth respondent (Rohtas), having filed the written statement,
chose to suffer the proceedings ex parte. The insurance company (third
respondent) denied its liability before the tribunal, inter alia, pleading that
the cover note produced was a fake document. The tribunal held that even if
the cover note were to be believed as a genuine document, it could not have
been availed of for enforcing the indemnity clause inasmuch as the vehicle
was not registered in the name of the firth respondent in whose favour the
said insurance cover purported to have been taken out.
4. During the evidence, the appellant examined himself as R4W1. In the
course of his testimony, he proved document (Ex.R4W4/1) described as a
delivery receipt executed on 14.03.2005 by fourth respondent (Rohtas)
acknowledging having purchased the vehicle from the appellant. During his
testimony, however, the appellant conceded that after the said sale of the
TSR on 14.03.2005 he had not made any report to the transport authority
where the vehicle was registered. Apparently, he had not taken any
insurance cover in respect of the TSR for the period, covering the date of
accident.
5. The tribunal, by judgment dated 30.04.2012, allowed the claim
petition of the first and second respondent and granted compensation in the
sum of Rs.19,97,224/- in their favour fastening the liability on the appellant,
inter alia, holding that he was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time
of the accident.
6. By the appeal at hand, the above noted finding is questioned.
Reliance is placed on the delivery receipt (Ex.R4W1/1). The contention is
that the appellant having shown by evidence that he had sold the vehicle in
favour of the fourth respondent, he could not have been treated as either de
jure or de facto owner of the vehicle and, thus, liability could not have been
fastened on him.
7. Having heard learned counsel and having gone through the record,
this court finds the appeal to be unmerited.
8. The provisions contained in Section 50 of MV Act cast a
responsibility on the registered owner of the vehicle to intimate the transfer
of the vehicle in the name of another person within a period of 14 days.
Admittedly, no intimation was given by the appellant after the sale in favour
of the fourth respondent. The definition of the expression "owner", as given
in section 2 (30) of the MV Act renders the appellant to have continued to be
the owner of the vehicle, it having been registered in his name and the said
registration having continued in the record of the registering authority even
beyond the date of the accident. The appeal to the extent of this contention,
denying the liability must be rejected.
9. The appellant also questions the calculation of compensation on
account of loss of dependency. It is pointed out that the monthly
dependency was calculated at Rs.8,185/- per month. The tribunal wrongly
applied the multiplier of 18, ignoring the fact that the deceased was 34 years
and in view of the dictum in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 16 applies. The
counsel for the claimants fairly concedes to this but argues that the non-
pecuniary heads of damages have not been properly taken care of.
10. The loss of dependency is re-computed with the multiplier of 16, at
(8,185 x 12 x 16) Rs.15,71,520/-. Instead of non-pecuniary damages
awarded by the tribunal, following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir
Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma
(2015) 9 SCC 150, compensation in the sum of `1 lakh each on account of
loss of love & affection and loss of consortium and `25,000/- each towards
loss of estate and funeral expense are added. The tribunal had also granted
compensation in the sum of Rs.69,264/- towards hospital and medicine bills.
Putting together all these heads of damages (pecuniary and non-pecuniary)
the total compensation comes to (15,71,520+2,50,000+69,264) `18,90,784/-
rounded off to Rs.18,91,000/-.
11. Needless to add, the interim compensation of `50,000/-, if already
paid, shall be suitably adjusted and the amount shall carry interest as levied
by the tribunal.
12. The award is modified accordingly.
13. The statutory amount of `25,000/- is stated to have been deposited by
the appellant before filing of the appeal. The said amount, if deposited, shall
be released to the claimants towards part satisfaction of their claim.
14. The appellant is directed to pay the balance of his liability under the
modified award by requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days of this
judgment whereupon it shall be released to the claimants. In case the
appellant fails to make said deposit within the time given the rate of interest
shall stand increased to 10% per annum.
15. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 27, 2016/VLD
