Rajasthan High Court

Akshat Apartment Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Smt. Keshpati W/O Late Murari ... on 21 January, 2021

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1112/2019

Akshat    Apartment        Pvt.    Ltd.    Through         Director   Sunil    Jain,
Registered Office At A-27/13A, Kantichand Road, Banipark Jaipur
(Registered Owner Of Motor Cycle No. RJ-14-50M-4805)
                                                  ----Non-Claimant-Appellant
                                     Versus
1.       Smt. Keshpati W/o Late Murari Singh, Aged about 48
         years,
2.       Anita Kumari D/o Late Murari Singh, Aged About 20
         Years,
3.       Kumari Urmila Kumari D/o Late Murari Singh, Aged About
         16 Years,
4.       Hansraj S/o Late Murari Singh, Aged About 12 Years,
5.       Tej Singh S/o Late Murari Singh, Aged About 9 Years,
         Claimant Respondent No.3 to 5 minor through Natural

Guardian Mother Smt. Keshpati W/o Late Murari Singh All are R/o Tighariya Tehsil Todabheem Distt. Karauli .......Claimants-Respondents

6. Ram Mahesh S/o Shri Mojiram, R/o Jharoti Tehsil Bhusawar Distt. Bharatpur (Driver Of Motor Cycle No. RJ- 14-50M-4805) ......Respondent/Non-Claimant

7. Vinod Sharma S/o Shri Parashram Sharma, R/o 22, Shankar Vihar Colony, Sawai Gator, Jagatpura Jaipur Presently Posted As Executive Akshat Apartment Pvt. Ltd. A-27/13A, Kantichand Road, Banipark Jaipur

----Proforma-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta Mr. Amitabh Jatav for respondent/non-claimant no.6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

21/01/2021

(2 of 7) [CMA-1112/2019]

The matter comes up on application no.1/2020 filed by the

respondents-claimants seeking vacation of the ex-parte interim

order dated 17.09.2019.

With the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the

respective parties, the appeal is heard for admission today at this

stage.

The appeal is directed against the judgment dated

09.01.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Dausa, District Dausa whereby the claim petition filed by the

respondents-claimants has partly been allowed against the

appellant-non-claimant no.2 only.

Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the

appellant contended that it has handed over the vehicle in

question on 05.03.2016 i.e. prior to accident to M/s Akar Motors,

Jaipur in exchange offer and hence, it did not owe any liability for

payment of compensation. He further contended that in spite of

recording a categorical finding that the respondent no.6/non-

claimant no.1 was driving the vehicle at the time of accident,

liability to pay compensation has been fastened by the learned

Tribunal on the appellant only. He, therefore, prayed the impugned

order dated 09.01.2019 be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, relying on a

three-judges Bench judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in

case of Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors.: MACD

2018(1) (SC) 54, submitted that the learned Tribunal has

committed no error in holding the appellant liable to pay

compensation inasmuch as at the time of accident, it was

(3 of 7) [CMA-1112/2019]

registered owner of the offending vehicle. He submitted that in

view of the finding of the learned Tribunal on Issues No.1 and 2

that the respondent no.6 was driving the offending vehicle at the

time of accident, liability ought to have been fastened on the

appellant and the respondent no.6 jointly and severally.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6

submitted that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was

insured and in absence of the Insurance Company as party to the

claim petition, it was not maintainable.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

It is trite law that registered owner of the offending vehicle

on the date of accident is liable to pay the compensation and the

plea that he has already sold the vehicle in favour of third person

before the date of accident, is of no avail to him.

The Supreme Court of India has, in case of Naveen Kumar

(supra), held as under:

"6. The expression 'owner' is defined in Section 2(30) of the Act, 1988, thus:

"2(30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire- purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement."

The person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act. The use of the expression 'means' is a clear indication of the position that it is the registered owner who Parliament has regarded as the owner of the vehicle. In the earlier Act of 1939, the expression 'owner' was defined in Section 2(19) as follows:

(4 of 7) [CMA-1112/2019]

11...2. (19) 'owner' means, where the person in possession of a motor vehicle is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.

Evidently, Parliament while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 made a specific change by recasting the earlier definition. Section 2(19) of the earlier Act stipulated that where a person in possession of a motor vehicle is a minor the guardian of the minor would be the owner and where the motor vehicle was subject to a hire purchase agreement, the person in possession of the vehicle under the agreement would be the owner. The Act of 1988 has provided in the first part of Section 2(30) that the owner would be the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered. Where such a person is a minor the guardian of the minor would be the owner. In relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement would be the owner. The latter part of the definition is in the nature of an exception which applies where the motor vehicle is the subject of a hire purchase agreement or of an agreement of lease or hypothecation.

Otherwise the definition stipulates that for the purposes of the Act, the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered is treated as the owner.

7. Section 50 deals with the procedure for transfer of ownership, and provides as follows:

50. Transfer of ownership.--(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,--

(a) the transferor shall,--

(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and

(ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty-five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in Sub-clause (i)--

(5 of 7) [CMA-1112/2019]

(A) the no objection certificate obtained Under Section 48; or (B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,--

(I) the receipt obtained Under Sub-section (2) of Section 48; or (II) the postal acknowledgement received by the transferred if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgement due to the registering authority referred to in Section 48, together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted;

(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.

(2) Where--

(a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, or

(b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public auction conducted by, or on behalf of, Government, 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 in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, in such manner, accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer within the period specified in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), as the case may be, or if the person who is required to make an application Under Sub-section (2) (hereafter in this Section referred to as the other person) fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the transferor or the transferee, or the other

(6 of 7) [CMA-1112/2019]

person, as the case may be, to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him Under Section 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed Under Sub-section (5):

Provided that action Under Section 177 shall be taken against the transferor or the transferee or the other person, as the case may be, where he fails to pay the said amount.

(4) Where a person has paid the amount Under Sub- section (3), no action shall be taken against him Under Section 177.

(5) For the purposes of Sub-section (3), a State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay on the part of the transferor or the transferee in reporting the fact of transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle or of the other person in making the application Under Sub-section (2). 32 (6) 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.

(7) A registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the transfer of ownership to the transferor and to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority.

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 the accident within the meaning of Section

(7 of 7) [CMA-1112/2019]

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.

13. The submission of the Petitioner is that a failure to intimate the transfer will only result in a fine Under Section 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the vehicle. In Dr. T.V. Jose, this Court observed that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. But for the purposes of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the registering authority is the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law must be fulfilled."

The same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court of India in case of Prakash Chand Daga Vs. Saveta

Sharma & Ors.: MACD 2019(1) (SC) 6.

In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court

finds no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant qua its liability towards payment of compensation;

however, in view of the finding of the Tribunal qua Issues No.1 and

2 wherein, it has been held that the respondent no.6 was driving

the offending vehicle at the time of accident, by liability fastened

on the appellant only to pay the compensation, deserves to be

interfered with.

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated