AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Dhar, J
The petitioner has challenged order dated 25.07.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantnag in an execution petition filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 1. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has impleaded one Farooq Ahmad Sofi (Waza) as respondent No. 2 to the execution proceedings.
No one is appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 for quite some time. Today also no one has appeared on behalf of the said respondent. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is set exparte.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the record.
It appears that a claim petition was filed by the dependants of the deceased Mohammad Shafi Wani who had died in road traffic accident involving vehicle bearing Registration No. JK03-2242. The accident had taken place on 05.11.2005 on Srinagar-Jammu National Highway at Main Chowk, Awantipora. The learned Tribunal vide its award dated 29.10.2009 awarded a sum of Rs. 11,32,000/-along with interest as compensation in favour of the dependants of the deceased. The same was made payable by the petitioner Insurance Company with a right to recover it from respondent No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle. This was done, as the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, found that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and there was breach of policy conditions. The aforesaid award of the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner Insurance Company by way of appeal before this Court. Vide judgment dated 10.06.2011 passed in CIMA No. 62/2010, award of the Tribunal came to be modified and it was reduced to Rs. 10,80,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. However, the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license at the time of the accident was upheld and right of the petitioner Insurance Company to recover the awarded sum from respondent No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle was also upheld
It seems that the petitioner Insurance Company after discharging its liability to pay the awarded sum to the dependants of the deceased, filed an execution petition before the Tribunal seeking recovery of the amount from respondent No. 1/owner of the vehicle. During proceeding of the execution petition, the respondent No. 1/owner filed objections to the same and advanced a plea that one Farooq Ahmad Sofi is owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal on the basis of the objections filed by the owner of the offending vehicle impleaded Farooq Ahmad Sofi (Waza) as respondent No. 2 to the execution petition in terms of the impugned order.
The petitioner Insurance Company has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that once right of the petitioner to recover the awarded sum from respondent No. 1 was adjudicated upon and granted in its favour by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court, it was not open to the Tribunal to go beyond the award and implead another person as party to the execution proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the scope of the execution proceedings is limited and the executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled Pradeep Mehra Vs. Harijivan J. Jethwa (Since deceased Thr. LRS) and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6375 of 2023 decided on 30.10.2023
As already stated while narrating the background facts of this case, the Tribunal has after recording evidence found that there was breach of policy conditions on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle and as such, the petitioner Insurance Company was not obliged to indemnify the insured. However, having regard to the fact that because of the unfortunate death of the deceased, his dependants were deprived of their sustenance, the Tribunal directed that in the first instance, the awarded sum shall be paid by the petitioner Insurance Company to the claimants whereafter it will have a right to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. This finding has been upheld by the High Court in appeal specifically providing that the Insurance Company can recover the compensation paid by it to the claimants without institution of suit in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Chander and Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Ltd and anr. 2007 AIR SCW 1889. Thus there was no reason for the learned Tribunal to implead any person to the execution proceedings other than the owner of the offending vehicle.
A perusal of the record of the Tribunal shows that respondent No. 1 while filing his reply to the claim petition, has admitted that he is owner of the offending vehicle. In fact a copy of the registration certificate of the offending vehicle which is on record of the Tribunal also shows that respondent No. 1 is registered owner of the vehicle in question. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines “owner” as a person in whose name motor vehicle stands registered. Having regard to the definition of “owner” as contained in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, a person in whose name motor vehicle stands registered in the records of the Registering Authority is to be treated as owner of the vehicle for the purpose of Motor Vehicle Act. Since the name of respondent No. 1 stands entered in the registration certificate of the offending vehicle, as such, it was only respondent NO. 1 against whom the petitioner Insurance Company had a right to seek recovery of the amount of compensation paid b y it to the claimants.
Even otherwise, the Supreme Court has in case titled Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 1 held that even if a registered owner transfers/sells the vehicle to another person but continues to be reflected in the records of the Registering Authority as owner of that vehicle, he would be treated as owner of the vehicle for the purpose of Motor Vehicle Act ansd would not stand absolved of his liability as owner under the said Act
In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to implead a person other than the registered owner as party to the execution proceedings. The course adopted by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order is perverse and unsustainable in law. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside
Accordingly the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to proceed expeditiously in the execution proceedings in accordance with law.
Copy of the order be sent to the Tribunal for information.
Disposed of as above.