Smt. Sheela (Registered Owner) vs Smt. Meena Sharma And Ors.
2019 Latest Caselaw 254 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Judgment delivered on: 15th January, 2019

+      MAC.APP. 137/2016 & CM APPL. 5098/2016

       SMT. SHEELA (REGISTERED OWNER)                              ...Appellant

                                     Through:   Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, Advocate
                                                with Mr. Siddharth Jha, Mr.
                                                Krishna Kumar and Mr.
                                                Prabhakar Thakur, Advocates.
                                    versus

    1. SMT. MEENA SHARMA
       W/o Late Sh. Surender Sharma
    2. KM. SUNAINA SHARMA
       D/o Late Sh. Surender Sharma
    3. KM. SHIVANI SHARMA
       D/o Late Sh. Surender Sharma
    4. MASTER BAIBHAV SHARMA
       S/o Late Sh. Surender Sharma
    5. SMT. DRAPATI DEVI
       W/o Late Sh. Ram Avtar
    6. PRADEEP CHAUDHARY (DRIVER)
    7. SHRI NARESH (SUBSEQUENT OWNER)
    8. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (INSURER)                   ... Respondents

                                     Through:   Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
                                                with Mr. Amit Gaur, Advocate
                                                for R-8.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA




MAC.APP. 137/2016 & CM APPL. 5098/2016                              Page 1 of 7
                                    JUDGMENT

I. S. MEHTA, J.

1. The appellant has challenged the impugned award in Suit No. 589/14 dated 07.09.2015 passed by the Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Singh PO, MACT-02, (Central) Delhi (henceforth referred to as the Tribunal) whereby the compensation of Rs.17,36,886/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization has been awarded in favour of Respondent Nos.1-5/Claimants (hereinafter called claimant).

2. The facts alleged are that on 18.11.2012 at about 8:20 AM deceased Sh. Surender Sharma alongwith his colleague Sh. Irfan Ali (Pillion Rider) was going towards ITO on a motorcycle bearing No. DL3S-CF-2486. On reaching DDU Marg cut just ahead of Andhra School, suddenly a TSR bearing No. DL1RK-7643 (hereinafter called the offending vehicle) came from rear side at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and took left turn negligently without giving indicator for the same and unfortunately hit the motorcycle, as a result of which both riders on the motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to L.N.J.P. Hospital, New Delhi with the help of passerby in the same TSR driven by Respondent No.6, Driver. On reaching to the L.N.J.P. Hospital deceased was referred to Sanjivan Medical Research Centre, Daryaganj, New Delhi vide MLC No. 227759/13, he remained admitted there from 18.11.2012 to 25.11.2012. He succumbed to his injuries on 25.11.2012. Post mortem was carried out at L.N.J.P. Hospital on 26.11.2012. The pillion rider Sh. Irfan Ali too sustained

injuries on his person, however not as fatal. He registered FIR, FIR No. 214/12 under Section 279 and 337 IPC at P.S. I.P. Estate on 18.11.2012.

3. The police investigated the case and filed the Charge Sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on 18.03.2013 against Driver of Offending Vehicle Pradeep Chaudhary (Respondent No.1 in Tribunal, Respondent No.6 herein) to the competent court of jurisdiction. Pradeep Chaudhary, driver of offending vehicle was found driving the Offending Vehicle without driving license and the Offending Vehicle was found in the name of Registered Owner Mrs. Sheela (Resondent No.2 in Tribunal, Appellant herein), who stated that she has sold off the vehicle to Subsequent Owner Naresh (Respondent No.3 in Tribunal, Respondent No. 7 herein).

4. The Claimants/Respondent Nos.1-5 filed an application under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation amounting to Rs. 50 Lakhs. Subsequent owner Naresh preferred to file a written statement qua claim petition and taken preliminary objection that the claim petition is without any cause of action and the amount claimed by the claimants is exaggerated and he has not denied that he is not the owner of the Offending Vehicle. Registered owner Mrs. Sheela did not prefer to file written statement qua Claim Petition. However, driver of the offending Vehicle Pradeep Chaudhary has filed written statement where he took preliminary objections that the claim is without cause of action and amount claim is exaggerated and he has not denied that he is not the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The claimant, wife of the deceased Sh. Surender Sharma in support of her claim has examined herself as PW1 and filed affidavit as Examination-in-chief Ex.PW1/A and stated that she is the legally wedded wife of the Late Sh. Surender Sharma who expired in the alleged road accident leaving behind his wife, Meena Sharma, two minor daughters, one minor boy and one old mother who all were dependent on the deceased. On the date of accident her husband and his colleague Irfan Ali were going towards ITO, when they reached DDU Marg cut just ahead of Andhra School, suddenly Offending Vehicle came from rear side at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and took left turn negligently without giving indicator for the same and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which both fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to L.N.J.P. Hospital, New Delhi with the help of passerby. Thereafter, deceased was referred to Sanjivan Medical Research Centre, Daryaganj, New Delhi. He remained admitted there from 18.11.2012 to 25.11.2012 and later died on 25.11.2012 due to the injuries received in accident on his person. The post mortem was carried out at L.N.J.P. Hospital on 26.11.2012. FIR, FIR No. 214/12 under Section 279 and 337 IPC at P.S. I.P. Estate on 18.11.2012 was got registered. The deceased was an able bodied man of 48 years age and was working with M/s Global Corporation Ltd. as Sales Executive and was drawing a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month but due to sudden demise of her husband, the entire family has suffered irreparable loss and injuries. She had relied on UID Cards of the claimants Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/E, Original Death Certificate of the deceased Ex.PW1/F,

Salary Certificate Ex.PW1/G, Criminal Record including PMR Ex.PW1/H and Original medical bills Ex.PW1/I (colly). Claimant has examined Pawan Kumar of M/s Global Corporation Ltd. as PW2 in the MACT Claim who has proved the salary certificate Ex.PW2/1. Claimant has examined eye-witness Sh. Irfan Ali as PW3 in the MACT Claim who has proved that the offending vehicle was driven by Pradeep Chaudhary in a rash and negligent manner and it hit the motorcycle near DDU Marg cut ahead of Andhra School on 18.11.2012. Driver Pradeep Chaudhary has not led any evidence in support of his written statement.

6. The Appellant Mrs. Sheela was proceeded Ex-Parte on 23.07.2013, she later joined the proceedings. She did not cross examined the claimant, and the statement of claimant Ex.PW1/A stands unrebutted qua Appellant, it was also not cross examined by the driver of offending vehicle, Pradeep Chaudhary and the subsequent owner, Naresh. The Claimant Meena Sharma was cross examined by National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No.4 in Tribunal, Respondent No.8 herein) who has not disputed that the accident has not taken place with the Offending Vehicle. The insurance company does not dispute that the injured died subsequently on 26.11.2012. The insurance company also does not dispute the claimant to be wife of the deceased, on the contrary Claimant Meena Sharma has proved herself to be wedded wife of the deceased Surender Sharma who met with accident on 18.11.2012 with Offending Vehicle.

7. Appellant Mrs. Sheela has examined herself as R2W1 and has given her affidavit as Examination-in-Chief Ex.R2W1/A and stated

that offending vehicle was sold to Naresh, Respondent No.7 herein in the year 2008 and he had taken all responsibility and liability of the same. Naresh, in support of his written statement has examined himself on 12.03.2015 and stated that he has purchased the Offending Vehicle from Smt. Sheela and Offending Vehicle was in his possession at the time of the accident on 18.11.2012.

8. Insurance company has examined Shri Bhagwan as R4W2 on behalf of the insurance company who stated that the insurance company has issued the insurance policy of the Offending Vehicle in the name of Mrs. Sheela, Appellant herein for the period 14.02.2012 to 13.02.2013 and issued notice to Driver, Registered Owner and Subsequent Owner of the offending Vehicle vide Ex.R4W2/2, Ex.R4W2/3 and Ex.R4W2/4 respectively and receipt of same are Ex.R4W2/5, Ex.R4W2/6, Ex.R4W2/7 respectively and further stated that driver did not had his driving license to drive the Offending Vehicle for which he even got challaned under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, there is no liability of the insurance company.

9. What is emerging on record is that the Offending Vehicle i.e. TSR bearing No. DL1RK-7643 was registered in the name of Mrs. Sheela, Appellant herein and the same was also insured in her name vide Policy No. 354500/31/11/6700001265 Ex.R4W2/1 from 14.02.2012 to 13.02.2013 and the date of the accident is 18.11.2012. Further, Naresh, Respondent No.6 herein in his written statement to claim petition in Tribunal claimed to be owner in possession of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident i.e. 18.11.2012, what is

apparent on record is the transaction between the registered owner Mrs. Sheela and subsequent owner Naresh is yet to be completed for want of transfer of ownership in the name of Naresh in the RTO records as defined under Section 2(30) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Since, RTO records and insurance policy does exists in the name of Appellant, she cannot be permitted to absolve her liability without transfer of RTO records in the name of Subsequent Owner Naresh. Furthermore, alleged driver Pradeep Chaudhary too was driving the offending vehicle without driving licence. Therefore, Appellant/Registered Owner Mrs. Sheela, Respondent No.6/Driver Pradeep Chaudhary and Respondent No.7/Subsequent Owner Naresh are rightly held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation for their negligence. Reliance is placed on Apex Court Judgments in Prakash Chand Daga V. Saveta Sharma 2018 SCC Online SC 2830 and Naveen Kumar V. Vijay Kumar & Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 1.

10. As such, I find no infirmity with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. Thus, the present appeal and application is accordingly dismissed and impugned award is upheld.

11. LCR File be sent back.

I.S.MEHTA

(JUDGE)

JANUARY 15, 2019