Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Anamika vs Jaipal Singh on 18 January, 2023
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No(s). 2491-2492/2018
Mrs. ANAMIKA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
JAIPAL SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the appeal papers. In respect of the accident that had occurred on 17.04.1995, the appellants herein, as claimants, had preferred the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short ‘MACT’). The MACT through its order dated 07.03.2005 awarded a sum of Rs.6,03,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Three Thousand Only) and fastened the liability upon all the respondents to the claim petition jointly and severely. In the appeal, which was filed by the registered owner assailing the liability being fastened on the registered owner, the High Court through its impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.2017, though had enhanced the compensation in the appeal filed by the appellant/claimants herein, had held that the liability to pay the compensation would be that of the Signature Not Verified respondent no.12 (Balwant Kaur (now deceased) through its Digitally signed by Nisha Khulbey Date: 2023.01.19 17:00:22 IST Reason: legal heirs) herein. In that view, registered owners namely respondent nos. 1 to 5 and 8 to 11 were exonerated from paying the compensation.
2
2. It is in that light, the appellants/ claimants are before this Court assailing the judgment dated 17.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on that aspect of the matter and also seeking enhancement on the ground that the interest granted by the High Court is not in accordance with law and the same be granted from the date on which the accident had occurred.
3. In the light of the contentions urged herein, we have referred to the award dated 07.03.2005 passed by the MACT. On the aspect relating to liability for payment of compensation, the Tribunal has recorded the finding as hereunder, “30. On the basis of this ruling, the learned counsel for the respondents nos. 2 and 3 contended that although in the registration certificate, the latter continued to be the registered owners of the offending vehicle. Yet because of change of possession, thereof, in favour of respondent no.4 who had employed respondent no.1 as driver of the offending vehicle only latter can be held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants in this case. This contention of the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 deserves to be repelled as in the registration record, respondent nos. 2 and 3, now deceased continued to be the owners of the offending vehicle and that being so, in view of Dr. T.V.Jose Vs. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and other, 2001 (2) Apex Court Journal 445, rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India they continued to remain liable to the third parties when their names continued in the record of the registering authority as owners.
31. In the Ruling supra, it was held that the appellant still continued to remain liable to third party as hisb name continued in the record of RTO as owner. So, it was held that 3 the appellant could not escape that liablity and it will be for the appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against the vendeeif, in alw, he is entitled to do so. Even affidavit mar R7 was given by Sham Singh, respondent no.2 herein, now deceased regarding sale of offending truck in favour of respondent no.4. In this affidavit, he has described himself to be an attorney of the co-owner of the truck respondent no.3 but that power of attorney has not been placed on the record meaning thereby, that there is no evidence on the record to indicate that respondent no.3 had constituted respondent no.2 as his attorney to sell the offending truck to respondent no.4.
32. So, in view of the affidavit mark R7, respondent no.3 still continues to the owner of the offending truck.” As against the finding recorded therein, the High Court while reversing the same, has merely taken into consideration that the vehicle which had been seized by the Police after the accident, had been thereafter released by the competent Court in favour of the respondent no.12 herein, who is the subsequent purchaser and that too by ignoring the decision of this Court and noting the same.
4. The award passed by the Tribunal would in fact disclose that the Tribunal, at the first instance, while arriving at its conclusion, has taken into consideration the law laid down by this Court and on taking note that though the predecessors of the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and the respondent nos. 8 to 10 herein, had contended that the vehicle had been sold, they continued to be the registered owners and they remained liable to the third parties. 4
5. In that view, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in modifying the finding which had been rendered by the MACT towards liability. To that extent, we note that the MACT was justified in its conclusion and as such, the registered owner as well as the subsequent purchaser in the instant case would remain liable and the registered owner, who is stated to have sold the vehicle, would be entitled to make appropriate recoveries from their vendee but they would still remain liable to the appellants/ claimants herein.
6. In that view, holding that the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and respondent nos. 8 to 10 would be jointly and severely liable to pay the enhanced compensation to the appellants/claimants herein.
7. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the appeals are allowed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
...................J. (A.S. BOPANNA) ...................J. (SUDHANSHU DHULIA) New Delhi 18th January, 2023 5 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 2491-2492/2018 MRS. ANAMIKA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS JAIPAL SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 18-01-2023 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA For Appellant(s) Mr. Praveen Kumar Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NISHA KHULBEY) (DIPTI KHURANA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)