Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagbir Singh vs Unknown on 4 October, 2011
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No. 295 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 295 of 2010
Date of decision: 4.10.2011
1. FAO No. 295 of 2010
Jagbir Singh Appellant
v.
Manjeet Kaur and Others Respondents
2. FAO No. 296 of 2010
Jagbir Singh Appellant
v.
Kirandeep Kaur and Others Respondents
3. FAO No. 325 of 2010
Jagbir Singh Appellant
v.
Kirandeep Kaur and Others Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. S.S.Grewal, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Tarunveer Vashisht, Advocate for respondent No.4
....
JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J These appeals ( FAO Nos. 295, 296 and 325 of 2010) have been filed by the appellant against the common Award dated 12.10.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Adhoc) Patiala (for short the Tribunal).
Three claim petitions Nos. i.e. (1) MACT Nos. 169T of 1.6.2005/25.5.2006 filed by Manjit Kaur and others v Amarjeet Singh and Others, (2) 167T of 1.6.2005/20.6.2006 Kirandeep Kaur and Another v. Amarjeet Singh and Others, and (3) 168T of 16.5.2006/20.6.2006, Kirandeep Kaur and Others v. Amarjeet Singh and Others, filed by the FAO No. 295 of 2010 2 claimants, under sections 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal were accepted vide common Award dated 12.10.2009. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants have preferred these appeals.
For the sake of reference, facts are being taken from FAO No. 295 of 2010. On the intervening night of 16/17-2-2005, Kawal Preet Singh along with Arsh Preet Singh @ Ishu (aged 3 year), Taranjit Singh @ Lucky (aged 8 year) and Himat Kaur were going on motor cycle bearing registration No. PB-11Y-3030 from Sukhram Colony, Patiala to their house via New Grain Market Patiala. When they reached near Gurudwara Arjun Darbar, New Yadvindra Colony, Patiala, a Canter bearing registration No;. HNE 1840 (Offending Canter) driven by Amarjeet Singh, respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and hit against the motor cycle of Kawal Preet Singh. Himat Kaur fell from the motor cycle. The bike was entangled in the front portion of the offending vehicle and was dragged to a distance of 20 Paces along with three occupants i.e. Kawal Preet, Ishu and Lucky. They died at the spot, whereas Himmat Kaur received injuries. Bakshish Singh witnessed the accident. FIR Ex. P3 was lodged with the police. Challan was presented against the driver in the Court. He was charge sheeted for causing the accident and was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 5.2.2009, Ex.P-17.
Upon notice, respondent No.1,driver denied the occurrence of alleged accident.
Jagbir Singh, respondent No.2, owner of offending Canter No. HNE-1840 on 11.2.2004 denied the said accident and pleaded that he sold the offending Canter to respondent No.1 and its possession thereof was delivered on the same day. The agreement of sale and purchase was FAO No. 295 of 2010 3 prepared on 10.3.2004 and Amarjeet Singh took the vehicle on spurdari on 27.5.2005 in criminal case, as owner of the Canter.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether on (mid night) 16.2.2005/17.2.2005 near Gurudwara Arjun Darbar, New Yadvindra Colony Road, the respondent No. 1, while driving Caner Swaraj Mazda No. HNE-1840 rashly and negligently caused the death of Kawal Preet Singh as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the claimants are legal heirs/ dependants of the deceased Kawal Preet Singh as alleged? OPP
3. Whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation, If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form?
OPR
5. Whether the claimants have no caue of action to file the present case? OPR
6. Whether the respondent has already sold the Canter Swaraj Mazda No. HNE-1840 to the respondent No.1 as alleged ? OPR
7. Whether the claim petition is bad for non joinder of necessary part? OPR
8. Relief".
Issues No. 1 to 3 and 4, 5 and 7 were decided by the Ld. Tribunal in favour of the claimants and against the respondents and claimants were awarded compensation .
While dealing with core Issue No. 6, (common in all the claim petitions) the Ld. Tribunal, in paras 29 to 31, observed FAO No. 295 of 2010 4 as under:-
"29. Jagbir Singh respondent No.2 as RW1 deposed in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A deposed that he has no concern with the canter in question as he is not the owner of the same because he has sold the same to respondent No.1 Amarjit Singh on 11.2.2004, as per agreement, who is now owner and its driver. Its possession was also delivered to him on the same day. He further deposed that respondent No.1 has also got the canter in question released on sapurdari on 27.5.2005 from the court by moving application on 21..5.2005 and has placed on record agreement Ex.R1 his affidavit mark 10 and affidavit of Amarjit Singh respondent No.1, Ex.R2, in which he got mentioned that he has purchased the tanker in question from him. Respondent No.2 also placed on record mark C copy of the application for release of the vehicle, mark E report of the police and Mark D release order of the vehicle and R6 sapurdari bond.
30. Counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that respondent No.2 has already sold the vehicle and delivered the possession of the vehicle to respondent No.1, so respondent No. 1 is responsible to pay the amount of compensation, if any. He referred to the documents placed on the record and cited 2007 ACJ 1666, 2008 ACJ 705, 2007 ACJ 1803, 2008 ACJ 644 while counsel for respondent No.1 argued that respondent No.1 is not registered owner of the vehicle, so he is not liable to pay any amount.FAO No. 295 of 2010 5
31. There is documentary evidence on the record in the shape of copy of the RC Ex. P18 in which respondent No.2 Jagbir Singh is clearly mentioned as owner of the vehicle in question though he sold the vehicle to respondent No.1. It has been held above that respondent No.1 caused the accident. Moreover, the seller continues to remain liable to third parties when his name continues in the records of the RTO as owner alongwith transferee. Taking this view, I am supported by a citation reported as 2001 (2) ACJ 445 and 2006 CCC 705. So in these circumstances, I am of the opinion that both the respondents i.e. Respondent No.1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence the above compensation will be paid to the claimants by respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the claimants and against respondents No. 1 and 2."
Aggrieved against the above findings of the Ld. Tribunal, Jagbir Singh, respondent-registered owner (herein appellant) has filed these appeals.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has passed the Award on the basis of surmises and conjecture and without properly appreciating the evidence on record. He submitted that accident took place due to the negligence of Kawal Preet Singh, whereas the Ld. Tribunal fastened the liability upon respondent-Amarjeet Singh. He pointed out that respondent Amarjeet Singh is responsible to make the payment to the claimants as the offending Canter was sold by Jagbir Singh, FAO No. 295 of 2010 6 appellant to Amarjeet Singh, respondent on 11.2.2004. An agreement of sale and purchase was executed on 10.3.2004 between Jagbir Singh, the seller and Amarjeet Singh, the purchaser, much prior to the date of accident. Learned counsel for the appellant cites Brijlal Khilwani v. Sohan and Others, 2007 Accident Claims Journal, 1666 (MP) and C.J.Thernas v. Aliakkutty and Others, 2010 Accident Claims Tribunal 2057 (Kerala) and argues that the vehicle is moveable property and its sale is governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. He further argued that the sale becomes complete when Jagbir Singh handed over the Canter to Amarjeet Singh, the purchaser much prior to the date of accident. He argued that after handing over the vehicle to the purchaser, the appellant had no physical control over the vehicle and thus not liable to pay any compensation arising out of accident caused by Amarjeet Singh, purchaser.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Amarjeet Singh submitted that the appellant Jagbir Singh cannot escape the liability of paying compensation to the claimants, as he continues to remain liable to third parties as his name continues in the records of RTO as owner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The only point for determination before this Court is as to "whether the registered owner or subsequent purchaser ( not recorded as owner in transport authorities record) of the offending vehicle are liable to pay compensation in the accident?"
There is no dispute that as per record of the R.T.O, Jagbir Singh, appellant was the registered owner of the offending Canter.
In Dr. T.V.Jose v. Chacko P.M. Alias Thankachan & Ors. 2001 FAO No. 295 of 2010 7 (8) Supreme Court Cases 0748, Hon'ble the Apex Court, while dealing with similar point, observed as under:-
"3. Before MACT the Appellant claimed that he had sold the car, on 7th May, 1986, to one Smt. M.K.Bhavani. It was claimed that Smt. Bhavani had thereafter sold the car, on 12th May, 1986, to Sh. Aboobacker. It was claimed that on 15th August, 1986, Sh. Aboobacker had sold the car to one George Mathew. The said George Mathew had supposedly thereafter sold the car to one Roy Thomas on 18th August, 1986. The Appellant claimed that on the date of the accident the car belonged to Roy Thomas. However it was an admitted position that the transfer of ownership of the car was never intimated to the R.T.O. And that in the records of R.T.O/., the name of the Appellant continued to be shown as the owner.
10. We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not right in holding that the Appellate continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. 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 R.T.O as owner. The Appellant could not escape that liability 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 FAO No. 295 of 2010 8 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."
The case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not to be followed in view of the Apex Court judgment in Dr.T.V.Jose's case, (supra) wherein it has been held that the seller continues to remain liable to third parties in case his name continues in the records of the R.T.O as owner. The argument addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is repelled.
In the present case, as per the copy of RC Ex.P18, appellant (Jagbir Singh) is shown to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question, though he allegedly sold the vehicle to Amarjeet Singh, respondent. The accident was caused by Amarjeet Singh. The seller i.e. Jagbir Singh continues to remain liable to third party as his name continues in the records of the RTO as owner. There is no rebuttal to this fact on the record. The Ld. Tribunal rightly held that respondents No. 1 & 2, Amarjeet Singh and Jagbir Singh are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
In view of the above discussion, these appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 4.10.2011 MS