Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarwan Kumar vs Gainda Ram on 22 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:054092
105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-5727-2015 (O&M)
Date of decision : 22.04.2024
Sarwan Kumar ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Gainda Ram ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
aggrieved by the Award dated 01.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the claimant-
respondent filed the claim petition averring therein that he was a labourer
and on 16.06.2013 he was picked up by the appellant herein as his employer
to take him to his place of work on his motor cycle bearing Registration
No.HR-05-AA-7936. Accordingly, he got on to the motorcycle as a pillion
rider. When they reached the main road, the motorcycle slipped as the
appellant herein was driving the same at a high speed and in a rash,
negligent and careless manner. As a result the claimant-respondent fell on
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:054092
FAO-5727-2015 (O&M) -2-
the road and struck against the hard surface due to which he suffered
multiple and grievous injuries on vital parts of his body including injury on
his chest, fracture of the right arm near the wrist. He was taken to his house
by his son Jasbir, Sanjay son of Ajmer Singh, Vinod son of Isham Singh, Raj
Kumar son of Chander Bhan and Shamsher son of Shri Chand. It was further
averred that he was a labourer and earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-.
It was further the case that Rs.2,00,000/- was spent on his treatment. On
notice the appellant herein appeared and contested the petition. It was
specifically averred by the appellant herein that he was neither the owner nor
was he driving the motorcycle bearing Registration No.HR-05-AA-7936 at
the time of the accident. He further took the stand that he never possessed
the motorcycle in his name or in the name of any of his family members and
that the case had been filed only to extort money from him.
3. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the motor vehicular accident which took
place on 16.6.2013 was caused on account of rash and
negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No.
HR-05AA-7936 by Sarwan Kumar respondent no.1
resulting into injuries to claimant Gainda Ram. If so, its
effect ? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimant is
entitled to claim any compensation. If so, how much and
from whom ? OPP
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:054092
FAO-5727-2015 (O&M) -3-
3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ?
OPR
4. Relief.
4. On issue No.1 the Tribunal held that the appellant herein was
the owner of the motorcycle on the basis of the statement of PW2-Vinod
Kumar. It was further observed that the appellant - Sarwan Kumar - had not
made himself available for cross-examination. The Tribunal holding the
appellant herein negligent, awarded an amount of Rs.37,000/- as
compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing
of claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been
preferred by the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that a specific
stand was taken by the appellant herein that he was not the owner nor was he
driving the motorcycle. The learned counsel for the appellant would further
contend that Ex.R1, which is a Certificate of Registration, clearly reveals
that the motorcycle is registered in the name of Ram Mehar son of Hari
Chand. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the appellant
herein had presented himself for cross-examination. The learned counsel has
also referred to the cross-examination of the appellant which is available on
the record of the Tribunal at page 115.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent has
contended that PW2-Vinod Kumar had stepped into the witness box and he
had maintained that he knew both Gainda Ram (claimant-respondent herein)
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:054092
FAO-5727-2015 (O&M) -4-
and Sarwan Kumar (appellant herein) and that the motorcycle was being
driven by Sarwan Kumar, appellant herein.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. In the present case it was observed by the Tribunal that Vinod
Kumar had acquired the character of an eye-witness which is totally contrary
to the record inasmuch as his affidavit in evidence nowhere mentions that he
was an eye-witness to the accident. Further still, a specific stand was taken
by the appellant herein that the motorcycle was not registered in his name
and he further stated that he was not driving the motorcycle. Ex.R1
(Registration Certificate) was produced by the appellant herein which
reveals that the motorcycle stood registered in the name of Ram Mehar son
of Hari Chand. Despite the said evidence coming on the record, the
claimant-respondent chose not to implead Ram Mehar and proceeded to
pursue the case against the present appellant for reasons best known to him.
Further, an observation has been made that Sarwan Kumar (appellant herein)
had not stepped into the witness box, however, the same is totally contrary to
the record inasmuch as on page 115 of the record of the Tribunal the cross-
examination of Sarwan Kumar, appellant herein, has duly been recorded.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kumar vs.
Vijay Kumar & Ors. [2018 (2) RCR (Civil) 74] has held that it is the
registered owner against whom the case is to be pursued. Para 12 of the said
judgment reads as under :
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:054092
FAO-5727-2015 (O&M) -5-
12. The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges
from the above decisions is that in view of the definition
of the expression 'owner' in Section 2(30), it is the
person in whose name the motor vehicle stands
registered who, for the purposes of the Act, would be
treated as the 'owner'. However, where a person is a
minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the
owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an
agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the
person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement
is treated as the owner. In a situation such as the
present where the registered owner has purported 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 liability.
Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of
the expression 'owner' in Section 2(30), making a
departure from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the
earlier Act of 1939. The principle underlying the
provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor
accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the
deceased victim should not be left in a state of
uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to
be burdened with following a trail of successive
transfers, which are not registered with the registering
authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the
salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the
interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment
of the object of the law. In the present case, the First
respondent was the 'owner' of the vehicle involved in
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:054092
FAO-5727-2015 (O&M) -6-
the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The
liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him.
Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court
has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments
of this Court in Reshma and Purnya Kala Devi."
10. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are
not sustainable in law and the same are accordingly set aside. The impugned
award stands set aside and the present appeal is allowed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
11. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant be refunded to him.
22.04.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
