Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naboo Khan vs Tulsa Bai on 4 March, 2024
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 98 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
NABOO KHAN S/O CHHOTE KHAN, AGE 60 YEARS,
CASTE MUSLIM, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O
MOHALLA NAYAPURA SIRONJ, DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.K. UPADHYAY- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. TULSA BAI W/O LATE BHAGAT SINGH, AGE 25
YEAR S , CASTE RAGHUVANSHI, R/O VILLAGE
BAGRODA, TEHSIL SIRONJ, DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. UDAY SINGH S/O LATE BHAGAT SINGH, AGE 2
YEARS, MINOR THROUGH GUARDIANSHIP
MOTHER SMT. TULSA BAI CASTE
RAGHUVANSHI, R/O VILLAGE BAGRODA, TEHSIL
SIRONJ, DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MOHINI D/O LATE BHAGAT SINGH , AGE 10
YEARS,MINOR THROUGH GUARDIANSHIP
MOTHER SMT. TULSA BAI CASTE
RAGHUVANSHI, R/O VILLAGE BAGRODA, TEHSIL
SIRONJ, DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. LAXMAN SINGH S/O NAWAB SINGH , AGE 65
YEARS, CASTE YADAV, OCCUPATION:
CARPENTER, R/O P.S. SURANTAAL TEHSIL
SIRONJ, DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(OWNER)
5. LEKHRAJ S/O NETRAM , AGE 37 YEARS, CASTE
NAMDEV, R/O MOHALLA BAHAWANI NAGAR,
SIRONJ, DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(DRIVER)
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3 BY SHRI YASH SHARMA - PROXY COUNSEL
ON BHEALF OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA - ADVOCATE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Appellant/purchaser of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the liability part of the
impugned award dated 29/11/2010 passed by Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Sironj, District Vidisha in Claim Case No. 08/2007; whereby,
while partly allowing the claim case filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to
3/claimants, they have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,27,000/- for
death of one Bhagatsingh in road accident dated 19/7/2006; whereby, liability
has been fixed over the appellant and driver of the offending vehicle-a tractor.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 19/7/2006 at about 7.30 pm
when deceased Bhagatwigh was going on his motorcycle to village Bagroda, it
is alleged that near the field of appellant, due to rash and negligent driving of it
driver (respondent no. 5 herein) tractor dashed the motorcycle due to which
Bhagatsingh sustained grievous hurts and succumbed to the same during the
treatment. Therefore, claimants-wife and children of deceased preferred a claim
case which has been partly allowed by the impugned award and they have been
awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,27,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6%
per annum; however, liability was fixed over appellant-purchaser of tractor and
respondent No. 5-driver.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that learned
claims Tribunal erred in fixing the liability over him and the driver considering
them purchaser of the offending vehicle on the basis of statement of respondent
No. 4 whereas, no sale agreement has been bring on record to prove that prior
to accident respondent no. 4 sold the tractor to appellant and he was purchaser
of the offending vehicle; whereas, till the date of accident, the registration of the
tractor was not transferred and the respondent No. 4 was the actual owner of
the tractor and therefore, in the light of catena of decisions of Apex Court, the
actual owner was liable to be fastened with the liability of payment of
compensation amount.
4. Cross objections have also been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1
to 3 vide I.A.No. 1864/2011 seeking enhancement of compensation amount on
the ground that the income of deceased so assessed by the Claims Tribunal is
on the lower side and wrong multiplier has been adopted.
5. None appeared on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5 though served.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. It is a case where appellant is claiming to be a subsequent buyer of the
offending vehicle and is aggrieved by the impugned award passed by Tribunal
awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,27,000/- to the claimant and fixing liability
upon him instead of passing said award only against respondent No. 4.
According to appellant on the date of accident, the actual owner of the vehicle
was respondent No. 4 as registration was in his name and was not transferred
till the date of accident.
8. Here in the present case from perusal of impugned award, this Court is
of the opinion that learned Claims Tribunal did not err in holding that offending
vehicle was involved in the incident and accident happened due to rash and
negligent driving of the respondent No. 5. However, in light of decision of Apex
Court in the matter of Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar, 2018 ACJ
677(SC), the respondent No. 4 is also equally responsible as he failed to get the
ownership transferred in the name of appellant.
9. In such cases, the registration of the vehicle in the name of an
individual is of import but it generally proceeds on the presumption that the
person in whose name the vehicle is registered in the person responsible for its
use, though this attracts to him the vicarious liability but then also, it being a
rebuttable presumption, it cannot be a thumb rule that in all cases the registered
owner alone must be held accountable. If the registered owner can show, by
credible evidence, that he had no control over the vehicle or that the vehicle was
with someone else, over whom or use of the vehicle by whom, he had no
control, he alone cannot be held accountable, the liability in such cases has to
be shifted on the purchaser who had the control over the vehicle and on the
previous owner who failed to got the registration of vehicle transferred in the
name of purchaser after its sell.
10. As regards, cross-objections are concerned, from perusal of
impugned award the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, same so far as it
relates to quantum part is concerned, appears to be just and proper which in the
opinion of this Court needs no interference. Accordingly I.A.No. 1864/2011 is
dismissed.
11. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal is disposed of and
consequently the impugned judgment-award is modified to the effect that the
appellant, respondent No. 4 and 5 are fastened with the liability to pay
compensation amount jointly and severally. Rest of the conditions as imposed
by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
JPS/-
JAI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
PRAKASH
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179c
ec865c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
SOLANKI
serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B
8072A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F
8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
Date: 2024.03.11 09:55:08 +05'30'
