Banshilal vs Prem Kanwar And Others

Dinesh Mehta, J

Instant appeal has been preferred on the ground that the appellant has been wrongly held liable for the amount of compensation in relation to a vehicular accident which took place on 20.10.2009.

The facts in brief, relevant for the present purposes are that on 20.10.2009 an accident took place involving vehicle (motorcycle) bearing registration No.GJ 2 AA 1369 and the appellant's vehicle being a Tractor Trolly bearing registration No.RJ 04 RA 0110. The deceased Kalyan Singh who was plying the above referred motorcycle, when hit by the above referred Tractor Trolly succumbed to the injuries sustained and died instantaneously.

It is the case of the appellant that five days before the date of accident, the possession and the ownership of the aforesaid Tractor Trolly was transferred to Arjun Singh (respondent No.5), who was driving the Tractor at the relevant time.

Mr. Ravi Panwar and Ms. Anushri Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the appellant does not dispute the quantum of damages and their only contention is that the liability arising out of the vehicular accident should be fixed on the possessor and owner of the vehicle, who in the present case is Arjun Singh, who had not only accepted the possession of the vehicle but also accepted to have executed the document in the form of a sale letter dated 15.10.2009. It was argued that since the possession and ownership had been transferred on 15.10.2009 itself, the liability arising out of the accident occurred on 20.10.2009 is required to be borne by Arjun Singh (respondent No.5) and the appellant cannot be held liable for the compensation, simply because he was shown as a registered owner of the vehicle in the record.

It was also argued that subsequent fact that the vehicle got transferred in the name of respondent No.5 - Arjun Singh on 29.10.2009 pursuant to said sale letter dated 15.10.2009 is a proof of the fact that the sale de-facto took place on 15.10.2009.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

The argument of the appellant at the first flush appears to be attractive that the possession and ownership is to transfer on execution of the sale letter dated 15.10.2009, but if such contention is tested on the anvil of section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there remains no doubt that the ownership of vehicle, as per law, is with the registered owner. The registration of the vehicle got changed in the name of respondent No.5, on 20.10.2009. Hence, as per section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the registered owner of the vehicle is liable for the compensation arising out of the vehicular accident.

This Court is not much convinced with the argument of Mr. Panwar that the vehicle was released on supurdaginama to none other than respondent No.5 and he had accepted the factum of possession of vehicle at the time of accident.

There is no substance and force in the appeal, for which it is dismissed.

Record of the Tribunal be sent forthwith.