Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Varun Gupta vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd And Ors on 18 September, 2024
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
Sr. No. 64
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No.:- Mac App No. 151/2024
CM Nos. 5530/2024 & 5531/2024.
Varun Gupta
.....Appellant(s)
Through: Ms. Kumand Kamini, Advocate.
Vs
United India Insurance Co. Ltd and ors
..... Respondent(s)
Through:
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
18.09.2024
1. In the backdrop of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of "Vaibhav Jain Vs. Hindustan Motors
Pvt. Ltd" reported in 2024(0) Supreme (SC) 726, the
appellant- Varun Gupta comes forward with the present
appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
against an award dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Motor
Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT), Udhampur (in short,
'Tribunal') on file No. MACT/110/Claim filed by the
respondents No. 5 to 7 herein claiming compensation on
account of death of one Nitish Magotra dying in a road traffic
accident which took place on 02.05.2013 near Peer Baba
Ziarat Chenani Nagulta road involving vehicle (Maruti)
bearing registration No. JK14-9717.
2. An amount of Rs. 6,44,000/- along with interest has been
granted by the Tribunal in favour of the
claimants/respondents No. 5 to 7 herein and the appellant
being held to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle
has been fastened with the liability to pay the entire
compensation amount.
3. The appellant comes forth with a version that he contested
the claim petition with his objections filed stating therein
that the claim petition against him was not maintainable as
he had already sold the vehicle in reference to J&K
Vehicleade Private Limited through Maruti True Value for a
consideration of Rs. 30,000/- on 16.11.2012 and, therefore,
he made an exit from the ownership of the vehicle in
reference which otherwise, at that point of time, was having
an insurance cover issued by the United India Insurance Co.
Ltd which is respondent No. 1 herein and was respondent
No. 3 in the claim petition which insurance cover was
existing from 04.10.2012 to 03.10.2013 thereby covering the
date of accident which took place on 02.05.2013 but still the
Tribunal overlooked the said aspect and made the appellant
solely responsible for the payment of compensation whereas,
the fact of the matter is that from the J&K Vehicleade
Private Limited the vehicle in reference was purchased by
the respondent No. 4-Jatinder Kumar Sharma who figured
as respondent No. 5 in the claim petition and at the time of
the accident, the vehicle in reference was being driven by the
respondent No. 3 herein-Niranjan Joshi who was respondent
No. 2 in the claim petition while the deceased Nitish Magotra
was also travelling along with the respondent No. 3 herein-
Niranjan Joshi in the very said vehicle at the time of
accident.
4. By reference to the judgment of the Vaibhav Jain's case
(supra), Ms. Kumand Kiran, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has dealt with the definition of owner under Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and come up with an observation that
owner of a vehicle is not limited to categories specified
in section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that
if context so requires, even a person at whose command
or control the vehicle is, could be treated as its owner
for the purposes of fixing tortuous liability for payment
of compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vaibhav Jain's case
(supra) was pronounced on 03.09.2024 whereas in the
present case the Tribunal came up with the impugned award
on 21.02.2024 and as such the appellant had no occasion
to state the position of law in the context of the ownership of
the vehicle in reference whereas he had pleaded the facts in
the manner in which the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vaibhav Jain's case (supra) fully supports the
stand point of the appellant.
6. Acting on the side of caution that the appeal may be held to
be time barred, the appellant has come up with an
application-CM No. 5531/2024 for condoning the delay, if
any, involved but the office has reported no delay in the
matter of filing of the appeal as such, application-CM No.
5531/2024 is disposed of as not maintainable on account of
there being no delay to be condoned in the matter.
7. Issue notice to the respondents.
8. Appellant to furnish registered postal covers for the service
of the respondents within seven days whereupon the
Registrar Judicial, Jammu to issue notice to the
respondents.
9. List again on 04.11.2024.
10. In the meantime, subject to deposit of an amount of
Rs. 1.50 lacs out of the awarded compensation amount of
Rs. 6,44,000/- by the appellant before the Registry of this
Court by or before the next date of hearing, the execution
proceedings, if any, taken by the claimants/respondents No.
5 to 7 shall remain stayed with a rider that in case of default
of deposit of the amount as directed above, the execution
proceedings shall be resumed before the Executing Court.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
18.09.2024
Naresh/Secy.
