Shamshul Hassan vs Narayan Singh & Ors.
2023 Latest Caselaw 6565 MP

                             - : 1 :-

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
              AT I N D O R E
                           BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

                 ON THE 24th OF APRIL, 2023

                WRIT PETITION No. 309 of 2009

BETWEEN:-
SHAMSHUL HASSAN S/O NAJMUL HASSAN,
(OWNER)   AGED    ABOUT  38   YEARS,
OCCUPATION:     BUSINESS  R/O    119,
HAMMALPURA, MANGALWARA, CHHAWANI,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SEEMA SHARMA-ADVOCATE)

AND
   NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE CHANDER SINGH,
   AGED    ABOUT     28   YEARS,   GRAM
1.
   NAHARKHEDI,TEH.TARANA,UJJAIN
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   BHAWAR SINGH S/O LATE CHANDER SINGH,
   AGED    ABOUT     26   YEARS,   GRAM
2.
   NAHARKHEDI,TEH.TARANA,UJJAIN
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   BADRI S/O LATE CHANDER SINGH, AGED
   ABOUT       24       YEARS,     GRAM
3.
   NAHARKHEDI,TEH.TARANA,UJJAIN
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   PRAKASH S/O MANGILAL PRAJAPATI, AGED
4. ABOUT 23 YEARS, TELIWADA, SHAJAPUR
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                             .....RESPONDENTS

This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the

following:

                            ORDER

- : 2 :-

(1) Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2008 passed in Claim Case No. 42/2008 passed by VIth Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ujjain whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 readwith Section 151 of the CPC has been dismissed.

(2) The respondent No.1, 2 and 3 filed claim case No.42/2008 before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation against the petitioner and the respondent No.4. The petitioner has been impleaded as owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. MP-NH-9364 (Hero Honda Passion). The petitioner filed an application that before the date of accident, he already sold the aforesaid motorcycle to Mr. Atul Dubey on 17.01.2007 and handed over the possession. An agreement dated 17.01.2007 was executed, therefore, he is necessary party in the claim case. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 11.12.2008 dismissed an application that no sale was completed and thus the petitioner is still registered owner of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed the present petition. While issuing the notice to the respondents, this Court has stayed the further proceedings of the claim case.

(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of accident vehicle was in possession of purchaser, therefore, he would be liable to pay compensation as held by the Apex Court in case of P.P. Mohammed Vs. K Rajappan and others reported in 2003 ACJ 1595, hence, impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

(4) In the aforesaid case, so far as liability towards third person is

- : 3 :-

concerned, the Apex Court has held that registered owner remains liable to a third person. This judgment will not help the petitioner. Even otherwise from perusal of Annexure P/1, petitioner agreed to sale the vehicle to Ms. Atul Dubey in total consideration of Rs.27,000/-, out of which only Rs.17,000/- was paid and remaining amount shall be paid to finance company @ Rs. 2500/- in instalment. This is neither registered document nor duly stamped document. The complete ownership was not transferred because entire consideration amount was not paid.

(5) Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as '' Act, 1988'') deals with registration of Motor Vehicles. Section 50 of the Act, 1988 deals with transfer of ownership, according to which where the ownership of any motor vehicle is transferred, the transfer was within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and send a copy of the said report to the transferee. Sub Section 2 of Section 50 provides the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle or, as the case may be, who has purchased or acquired the motor vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the registering authority accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government. If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering, fine is liable to be imposed. On receipt of a report under sub-section (1), or an application under sub-section (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration. On receipt of a report

- : 4 :-

under sub-section (1), or an application under sub-section (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration. The Apex court in case of Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar AIR 2018 SC 983 has held that registered owner transferring vehicle but continuing to be reflected as owner in records of registered authority. Liability of registered owner to pay compensation would not be absolved. Therefore, despite execution of agreement to sale, no steps were taken by petitioner as well as so called purchaser, therefore petitioner is owner of the vehicle and his liability cannot be absolved to pay the compensation.

(6) In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, thus Writ Petition is dismissed.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE

praveen

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN Date: 2023.04.25 18:07:06 +05'30'