Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shiv Lal vs Kahnu Ram And Ors. on 22 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: II(2007)ACC868
Author: Deepak Gupta
Bench: Deepak Gupta
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in M.A.C. Petition No. 26 of 1993-18 of 1994: decided on 27.2.1999.
2. The facts necessary for the decision of this case are that claimants are the sons of one Reshmu. On 12.11.1992, Reshmu along with her sister were coming from the house of their brother to village Nagawahan. It is alleged that they were walking on the left side of the highway and when they reached village Kanaid and when Reshmu was crossing the National Highway, tractor No. HP-28 0332, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from Sundernagar towards Kanaid, hit Reshmu resulting in her death. In the original claim petition, it was alleged that Shiv Lal was the owner of the tractor and that Amar Singh had been impleaded since he was shown to be the owner in the registration certificate. Shiv Lal, respondent No.!, filed reply. He did not deny the ownership of the tractor but according to him the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased Reshmu herself. Amar Singh, respondent No. 2, in his reply submitted that the tractor in question was originally owned by him but on 17.10.1991 he had sold this tractor to Shiv Lal, respondent No. 1 and had delivered all the documents of the tractor to him along with the possession of the tractor. On this basis, it was submitted that it was owner, Shiv Lal who is liable to pay compensation and not Amar Singh.
3. Tribunal vide the impugned award held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000. It, however, held that only Shiv Lal, respondent No. 1, was liable to the compensation.
4. The present appeal has been filed by Shiv Lal. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Shiv Lal, urged that his client could not have been fastened with the liability to pay compensation since the tractor had not been transferred in the name of his client and the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act have not been complied with. On the other hand, Mr. C.B. Singh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Amar Singh, argued that since his client had already sold the tractor before the date of accident, therefore, Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant is liable to pay compensation.
5. As mentioned above, appellant in his reply did not deny that he was the owner of the tractor at the time of accident. Amar Singh has taken a specific plea that he had sold the tractor to said Shiv Lal. However, while appeaing in the witness-box as RW1, Shiv Lal stated that the said tractor was owned by Amar Singh and had been transferred in his name only on 28.5.1994. According to him, the registration certificate was transferred in his name on 6.7.1994. He produced a copy of the registration certificate which is Exh. DB. In the cross-examination, he admits that he had purchased the tractor in 1992 but further states that, thereafter Amar Singh had taken back the tractor. He also admits that the tractor is now with him. PW 2 Bidhi Chand also states that the tractor prior to 1992 was owned by Amar Singh and was purchased by Shiv Lal only on 28.5.1994. A perusal of the registration certificate Exh. DB, shows that in the certificate the tractor was transferred in the name of appellant only on 6.7.1994. Amar Singh did not step into the witness-box. However, certain documents were placed on record on his behalf. Mr. C.B. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Amar Singh, wants to refer to these documents, which are certified copies of an application for release of tractor filed by Shiv Lal after the accident and copy of agreement filed by him. These documents cannot be read on evidence since they have neither been exhibited nor they have been proved in accordance with law. Mr. C.B. Singh submitted that since these are certified copies of the documents obtained from the Court, these can be read in evidence. This contention cannot be accepted. These documents should have been put to Shiv Lal when he appeared in the witness-box and the original should also have been got proved by summoning record from the Court. This has not been done. However, the version of Shiv Lal that he had purchased the tractor in 1994 also cannot be believed. He states that he had purchased the tractor prior to the accident though he further states that thereafter the tractor was taken back by Amar Singh. This version of his is totally inconsistent with the evidence led by him. In my opinion, it stands proved on record that Shiv Lal was the owner of the tractor at the time of the accident and though in the registration certificate Amar Singh was still recorded as owner of the tractor.
6. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, relied upon certain judgments such as Imran Ansari v. Hajrat Ali Ansari , a judgment of the Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court, wherein on the basis of Section 50 and Section 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, it has been held that the person whose name is entered in the registration certificate should be deemed to be the owner of vehicle for all purposes. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of Madras High Court in S.N. Shanmugham v. Shankarlal Jain , in which case it was held that registered owner would continue to be liable till the registration is changed. However, these judgments need not detain me since the law in this regard stands settled by the Supreme Court of India.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a similar point in Dr. T. V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. II (2001) ACC 626 (SC) : 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC). In that case, the accident occurred on 9.4.1987. The appellant claimed that he had sold the car on 7.5.1986 to one 'M', 'M' had then sold the car on 12.5.1986 to one 'A'. On 15.8.1986, 'A' sold the car to 'G' and on 18.8.1986 'G' sold the car to Roy Thomas. It was, thus, claimed that on the date of the accident the car belonged to Roy Thomas but on the registration certificate the name of the appellant continues to be shown as owner. The Apex Court in para 10 held as follows:
(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 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 by merely joining Roy Thomas in these appeals. Roy Thomas was not a party either before M.A.C.T. or the High Court. In these appeals we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the appellant and Roy Thomas. It will be for appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Roy Thomas if in law lie is entitled to do so.
8. This matter, in fact, stands settled by the Supreme Court in P.P. Mohammed v. K. Rajappan 2003 ACJ 1595 (SC). The Apex Court considered the earlier judgments in Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari III (1997) ACC 370 (SC) : 1997 ACJ 1148 (SC) and Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. (supra) and held as follows:
(4) These appeals are filed by the appellant. The insurance company has chosen not to file any appeal. The question before this Court is whether by reason of the fact that the vehicle has been transferred to respondent No. 4 and thereafter to respondent No. 5, the appellant got absolved from liability to the third person who was injured. This question has been answered by this Court in case of Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC) wherein it is held that even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that by itself would not absolve the party, in whose name the vehicle stands in the R.T.O. records, from liability to a third person. We are in agreement with the view expressed therein. Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that the appellant stands absolved of his liability to a third person. So long as his name continues in R.T.O. records, he remains liable to a third person.
xxx xxx xxx (8) The above said observation is in the context of this question. All that was being considered in this case was the rights of the original owner vis-a-vis those of the transferee. Also the final decision is based on the terms of the contract between the parties. Therefore, they cannot be drawn out of the context. It will accordingly have to be held that the appellant as the person, in whose name registration continues, will remain liable to a third person. However, the person in actual possession would also be liable.
9. The law, therefore, is now clear that both the de facto owner as well as the owner shown as such in the registration certificate are liable so far as third parties are concerned. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the appellant was responsible. However, it was not right in holding that the registered owner, i.e., Amar Singh (respondent No. 5 herein) was not liable. The award is, therefore, modified to this extent and it is held that both the appellant and Amar Singh were liable.
10. In the present case, appellant has already deposited the amount. He was the actual owner and even now in possession of the vehicle and, therefore, his appeal is dismissed with the above modification. No costs.