Delhi High Court
Rajinder Kumar vs Smt. Neelam Gadhok And Ors. on 19 May, 2008
Author: Kailash Gambhir
Bench: Kailash Gambhir
JUDGMENT Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the interim order dated 30/05/2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell for proper appreciation of the matter are as follows:
On 15/10/1996 at about 7:00 pm the deceased Sh. Atul Kumar met with an accident after being hit by a maruti van bearing registration No. DNJ 1006. The said van was being driven by its driver, Sh. Ashok Kumar in a most rash and negligent manner, without caring for the traffic rules, without giving any signal or indicator and without blowing any horn and hit Sh. Atul Kumar. As a result of which, the deceased received fatal injuries and was rushed to the hospital where after being admitted to the hospital for a month, he succumbed to his injuries on 15/11/1996.
3. Sh. O.P Wadhwa, counsel for the appellant has assailed the interim order dated 30/05/2003 on the ground that the learned tribunal failed to appreciate that the appellant Sh. Rajinder Kumar had sold the vehicle on 5.5.1996 to respondent No. 6 Sh. Ashok Kumar and had sent the intimation of the same to the concerned R.T.O. on 10.5.1996, therefore, the appellant was not the owner of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident and thus Sh. Ashok kumar alone is liable to pay the interim compensation and not the appellant. The counsel further submitted that the tribunal failed to properly appreciate the facts of the case reported in 2001 VIII AD (SC) 168 entitled Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chakko P.M., which are totally dissimilar to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, not only the intimation of the sale of the vehicle was sent to the transport authority but even the purchaser of the vehicle, Sh. Ashok Kumar was a party to the proceedings before the trial court. The counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment entitled Sumathy and Ors. v. Raghavan and Ors. reported in 1997 ACJ 260 (Ker) (DB).
4. Per Contra, Sh. R.K. Singh counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 vehemently refuted the said contentions of the counsel for the appellant. The counsel urged that the tribunal has correctly held the appellant liable to pay the interim compensation and the said finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the interim order dated 31.8.1999. The appellant has also assailed the order dated 30.5.2003 whereby the application of the appellant moved under Section 151 CPC seeking stay on the execution of the interim award was dismissed. The main contention of counsel for the appellant is that on the date of accident, the appellant was not the owner of the offending vehicle as by then the same already stood transferred in favor of Mr.Ashok Kumar, respondent No. 6 herein. Distinguishing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr.T.V. Jose's Case (supra), counsel for the appellant contended that in the facts of the said case, the intimation was not sent by the transferer to the registering authority and, therefore, even after the transfer of the offending vehicle the name of the transferer continued as owner in the records of the RTO, therefore, he continued to remain liable to the third party. In contradistinction to the above, in the facts of the present case due intimation of transfer was sent by the appellant to the registering authority vide intimation letter dated 10.5.1996. Counsel further urged that there is no dispute either on the part of the respondents or on the part of the Government of NCT of Delhi regarding the receipt of the said intimation. Counsel further submitted that by sending the intimation letter to the office of the registering authority, the appellant had fulfillled his legal obligation in compliance with Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Before dwelling on the legal issues involved here, it would be expedient to reproduce relevant provisions of the Act. Sub Section 30 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act defines 'owner' which reads as under:
'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.
7. Sub Sections(1) and (3) of Section 50 of the Act provide in what manner 'transfer of ownership' shall take place and read thus:
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)-
(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 acknowledgment received by the transferee if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgment 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 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 subsection (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).
(6) On receipt of a report under Sub-section (1), or an application under subsection (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.
8. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the award to be passed by the claims tribunal and is read as under:
168. Award of the Claims Tribunal On receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an enquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be.
Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct.
9. Section 168 of the Act provides that the Tribunal on an application filed under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation shall after enquiring into the claim etc. may make an award determining the amount of compensation specifying the person to whom such compensation shall be paid. Not only this, the Tribunal is required to further specify the amount, which shall be paid by the insurer or the owner or the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident either by all or by any of them as the case may be. The owner or the driver of the offending vehicle are made liable to pay the awarded amount only in a case where the offending vehicle is not insured with the insurance company. Sub Section(30) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that an owner means a person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered. Section 50 of the Act provides for certain requirements to be fulfillled by the transferer in the case of a vehicle having been sold to the transferee. This Section does not envisage mere intimation of transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction, the transfer is to be effected but it mandates that such transfer has to be reported in such form with such documents and in such a manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority. Vide order dated 13.1.2006, notice was also directed to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi through its standing counsel so as to ascertain the position as to whether the appellant had reported the transfer of the vehicle as per the requirement of law. In response to the said direction, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has filed an affidavit. The relevant records have also been produced by the concerned registering authority of the Transport Authority, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The stand taken by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi is that the requisite transfer papers for the transfer of the vehicle bearing registration No. DNJ 1006 were submitted by Mr. Ashok Kumar transferee with necessary fees and other papers like cancellation of hypothication, Form 35 along with confirming letter only on 5.12.1996. The registration certificate was accordingly issued to Mr. Ashok Kumar only on 18.12.1996. The documents placed on record also support the said averments of the affidavit filed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It is thus evident that the requisite transfer papers in conformity with Section 50 of the M.V. Act were only filed on 5.12.1996 and not prior thereto.
10. It would be thus evident that mere intimation of transfer by the transferor to the registering authority would not be suffice to fulfilll the requirements of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act because such transfer of the vehicle has to be reported to the registering authority as per the norms prescribed by such registering authority. Reference to the term 'owner' under Section 168 of the Act is to the registered owner of the vehicle and not to the transferee whose name has yet to come on record. The Apex Court in Dr.T.V. Jose's case (supra) in Para 10 of the judgment has clearly held that the transferer shall continue to remain liable to third party so long his name continues in the records of RTO as owner. In the facts of this case also evidence produced on record showed that the ownership of the offending vehicle involved therein was transferred only on 18.12.1996 and prior to that in the records of the registering authority the name of the transferee was not yet entered. Para 10 of the said judgment for better appreciation is reproduced as under:
10. We agree with Mr Iyer that the High Court was not right in holding that the appellant continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of RTO. There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However, the appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of RTO as the owner. The appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Mr Roy Thomas in these appeals. Mr Roy Thomas was not a party either before MACT or the High Court. In these appeals, we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the appellant and Mr Roy Thomas. It will be for the appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Mr Roy Thomas if, in law, he is entitled to do so.
11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I, therefore do not find myself in agreement with the contention of counsel for the appellant that since the intimation was sent by the appellant to the registering authority, therefore, the owner gets absolved of the liabilities towards the third party. The judgment of Kerala High Court reported in the case of Sumathy and Ors. v. Raghavan and Ors. 1997 ACJ 260 is also not applicable in view of the said judgment of the Apex Court in Dr.T.V. Jose's case.
12. Thus, I hold that the liability of the appellant continued so long his name continued as registered owner in the records of the registering authority. Section 50 of the MV Act casts mandatory duty on the owner to report the fact of the transfer to the registering authority after transfer of the vehicle in such form with such documents and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority, therefore, mere intimation is not sufficient and the procedure as laid down under Section 50 of M.V. Act has to be strictly followed in accordance with the requirements laid down by the registering authority. Third party may be unaware of the transfer unless such a transfer is duly entered in the records of the registering authority. Nonetheless, It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the Tribunal to hold the transferee also liable to pay the compensation amount in the final award.
13. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.