Jharkhand High Court
Hiraman Sao vs Masomat Sabo & Others on 27 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 252 of 2019
........
Hiraman Sao .... ..... Appellant
Versus
Masomat Sabo & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellant : Mr. Rashmi Kumari, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.
........
06/27.07.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Rashmi Kumari.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
appellant has preferred this appeal against the award dated
25.05.2018, passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-
I-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Koderma, in Motor
Accident Claim Case No. 20/2013, which has been passed against
the registered owner of the Mini Bus bearing registration no. JH-
12B-1019, whereby claimants namely Mosomat Sabo, wife of Late
Rajendra Ram and Ganauri Rajbanshi @ Rajendra Rajbanshi, son of
Late Rajendra Ram have been awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs. 4,90,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application i.e. 23.09.2013 till its realization.
Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned
award on the ground that the vehicle was purchased under Hire
Purchase Agreement from TELCO, but without changing the name
of ownership, the appellant entered into an agreement on 11.07.2006,
with one Sunil Kumar Singh and on certain conditions, which has
been brought on record as Exhibit-1 series, The vehicle was handed
over to Sunil Kumar Singh, who has not been impleaded as a party in
the claim appliction. No notice has been issued to the registered
owner Hiraman Sao, rather after having knowledge from the Lok
Adalat, the appellant filed an application before District & Sessions
Judge-I-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Koderma on
12.01.2018 to implead Sunil Kumar Singh, as a party Respondent
under Order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. The
said application was dismissed on 27.04.2018, on the ground that on
repeated call, nobody appears on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 Hiraman
Sao to press the application dated 12.01.2018, as such, the same was
dismissed and the case was fixed for 04.05.2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that one
opportunity may be given to the appellant to defend his case in the
court below, as he has not filed any document in the court below,
rather insurance coverage which has been filed in the court below by
the claimant is also a fake insurance coverage, showing the vehicle
to be insured before the New India Assurance Company Limited, as
such, the matter may be remanded to the learned Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that
the vehicle remains in possession of Sunil Kumar Singh as such, in
view of Section 2 (30) of Motor Vehicles Act, Sunil Kumar Singh is
a necessary party being the owner of the offending vehicle, though
Hiraman Sao is the registered owner as mentioned in the Registration
Certificate of the Vehicle.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Alok Lal
appearing for the Insurance Company has defended the impugned
award and has submitted that even the vehicle has not been insured,
the insurance paper placed before the learned Tribunal has been
found to be fake and the same has been recorded in para-10 of the
Impugned order that vehicle bearing registration no. JH-12B-1019
was not insured with opposite party no. 3 - New India Assurance
Company Limited on 05.06.2013. The policy paper filed by the
claimants is totally forged, fabricated and manufactured, as such,
vehicle was not insured.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Navin
Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar reported in (2018) 3 SCC 1, wherein a
three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in view of
the definition of the expression 'owner' in Section 2(30) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is the person in whose name the motor
vehicle stands registered, who, for the purposes of the said Act,
would be treated as the owner of the vehicle. Where the registered
owner purports to transfer the vehicle, but continues to be reflected
in the records of the Registering Authority as the owner of the
vehicle, he would not stand absolved of his liability as owner.
From perusal of the impugned award, it appears that though
the accident is of dated 05.06.2013, there is clear violation of
directions and guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Jai
Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2010 (2)
SCC 607, where intimation has to be given by the Police after
lodging Koderma P.S. Case No. 152/2013 dated 05.06.2013. The
plea which has been taken by the appellant is not sustainable in the
eyes of law as the application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. filed on
12.01.2018 has been dismissed as not pressed on 27.04.2018, but no
revision or appeal has been preferred before the appropriate forum,
as such in a benevolent legislation, this Court cannot look into such
matter.
Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby
dismissed.
Since the miscellaneous appeal is dismissed on merit, as such,
I.A. No. 4996/2020 is also dismissed.
The statutory amount deposited by the appellant shall be
remitted to the learned Tribunal by the learned Registrar General of
this Court within a period of four weeks from today so as to
indemnify the part of the award and same shall be disbursed to the
claimants after due notice and verification and the balance amount
shall be indemnified to the claimants by the owner of the offending
vehicle within a reasonable period as the accident is of dated
05.06.2013.
If no execution case is not filed, the DLSA is directed to look
into the matter so that victim should not suffer because of non-
execution of the award in a benevolent legislation.
However, before parting with, this Court directs the Director
General of Police, Jharkhand to look into such matters where
litigation are lingering because of non - compliance of the directions
and guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash
(Supra).
Had it been a case where the police has informed the Court,
proper notice must have been issued upon the owner of the vehicle,
the entire criminal case of Koderma P.S. Case No. 152/2013 would
have been in a different way, meaning thereby that the vehicle ought
not to have been released in favour of authorized person also and it
would have large consequence in a criminal trial as during
subsistence of hypothecation (Hire Purchase Agreement), vehicle has
been transferred by the registered owner.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, in future, the Director
General of Police, Jharkhand should ensure compliance of the
direction issued by the Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash (Supra).
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil-Jay/-
