Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra And Another vs Ramhet on 9 March, 2018
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba, Anant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?AFR Court No. - 3 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 163 of 2018 Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra And Another Respondent :- Ramhet Counsel for Appellant :- Krishan Kumar Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Anant Kumar,J.
(Oral)
1. This appeal is directed against award dated 14.12.2017 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court no.1 Sitapur. The claim petition has been dismissed.
2. Perusal of the award indicates that the main issue framed for adjudication is whether Vishwapal Bharti died on account of turning turtle of the tractor trolley owned and driven by Ramhet s/o Nandram (respondent) on 24.1.2017.
It is evident from the award that registration number of the tractor trolley was not mentioned by the appellant claimant. Registered owner of the tractor trolley was not proved by the appellant/claimants. There is contradictory evidence in regard to the fact whether Ramhet was driving the tractor trolley. Under the circumstances, the tribunal has reached the conclusion to the effect that Vishwapal Bharti died in an accident, however, there is no evidence to prove that Ramhet was owner of the tractor or was driving the tractor. It has further been indicated that Ramhet has been falsely implicated because of previous enmity.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has been confronted by us with the finding and has been asked to show from a single document which would establish the registration number of the tractor and the fact that the tractor was owned by Ramhet.
Learned counsel has not been able to draw attention of the court towards any evidence to that effect.
4. We have taken notice of the particular fact that even registration certificate of the tractor, which allegedly was involved in the accident, has neither been brought on record nor has been proved. The ownership of the tractor of Ramhet has not been proved. This is a strange case in which registration number of the motor vehicle allegedly involved in the accident has not even been mentioned.
5. In a recent decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 6.2.2018 in Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others Civil Appeal No.1427 of 2018 arising out of SLP (c) no.18943 of 2016, in Para 12, the following has been held:-
?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 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.?
(emphasised by us) It would not be out of place to refer to the exact definition of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Section 2(30) Motor Vehicles Act 1988 reads as under:-
"Section 2(30) in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (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;"
6. From the above extracted portion of the judgment it becomes evident that purpose of introducing Section 2(30) in the Motor Vehicles Act is that 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. The person in whose name a Motor Vehicle is registered is to be considered as 'owner' of the vehicle.
Inverse of this would also be true. The ownership of the vehicle in terms of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act involved in an accident is required to be proved by the claimant(s).
Without showing that Ramhet was registered owner of the vehicle, within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are not entitled to claim compensation from Ramhet.
Ramhet cannot be held liable to pay compensation without the claimants proving that Ramhet was "owner" of the tractor which was involved in the accident.
7. In the case in hand, neither the registration number of the vehicle has been proved nor ownership of the said vehicle of Ramhet S/o Nandram has been proved. The evidence showing Ramhet as the driver is not worthy of belief.
8. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned award has been passed on the basis of relevant evidences and in accordance with the law.
9. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere.
The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.3.2018 Madhu