P. Sujathamma and Others vs G.M. Siva Prasad and Another

B.K. Somasekhara, J.—The matter was heard in part on the previous occasion, for the petitioner. Heard Mr. S.V. Sundara Rajan, the learned advocate for the first respondent. There is no representation for the second respondent.

The appeal is against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-Additional District Judge, Madanapalle in O.P. No. 27 of 1988 dated 15-9-1989 dismissing the claim petition which was filed u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short ''the Act'').

The appellants laid a claim for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- by way of compensation under ''no fault liability'' due to the death of one Krishna Reddy, the husband of Claimant No. 1 and the father of other claimants. It was alleged that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle No. M.E.V. 2779 said to be belonging to the first respondent. The first respondent resisted the petition on the ground that he was no longer the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident as he had transferred it to one Mahadevan, under the agreement Ex. B-1 dated 29-5-1987 which was found to be true during the enquiry. The Tribunal also found that the mother of the deceased being one of the legal heirs and person entitled to join the claim petition as either petitioner or respondent was not impleaded and therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed.

In so far as the first ground for dismissing the petition is concerned, the finding of the Tribunal is correct. Since it is based on facts and appreciation of evidence, in view of the testimony of Respondent No. 1 as R.W.I and the agreement Ex. B-1 dated 25-5-1987. In view of the above reasons given by the Tribunal this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same. The law in this regard is also settled. The Supreme Court in Panna Lal v. Shri Chand Mal and others 1980 ACJ 233 : AIR 1980 SC 87 held in categorical terms that when once the vehicle is transferred by the owner of a vehicle by handing over the registration papers, sale memo etc., notwithstanding the transfer of registration under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act by virtue of Section 31 of the Act, the transfer is complete. It was also held that there is no provision in the Act which prohibits the sale of a vehicle and u/s 31 of the Act, the transfer of ownership of the vehicle is permitted, but the statute casts an obligation on the transferee to report to the registering authority concerned regarding the transfer of the vehicle along with a certificate of registration and then get the registration transferred in his name. Our High Court in a Full Bench ruling rendered in Madineni Kondaiah and Ors. v. Yaseen Fatima and others 1985 (2) ALT 88 : 1986 ACJ 1 took a similar view by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Panna Lal''s case 1980 ACJ 233 : AIR 1980 SC 87. Further more, the same view is taken by many High courts including the High Court of Karnataka in Nemanna Yellapa v. Syndicate Bank and others 1979 ACJ 386. In addition to the reasons given by the Supreme Court and our High Court in the Full Bench decision, the following reasons given by the Karnataka High Court in Nemanna Yellapa''s case 1979 ACJ 386 would be of additional guidance:

"It may at once be observed that the sale of motor vehicles is not under the Motor Vehicles Act, but it is under the Sale of Goods Act. The fact of non- registration of the vehicle in the name of the purchaser does not vitiate the sale. In the case of V. Muthuswamy Goundar v. Thulasi Ammal (1970 ACJ 18) the High Court of Madras, has held that Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no doubt states that contractual transfer of ownership of a vehicle has to precede the application for transfer of ownership. But, as between the transferor and transferee the sale gets completed before the transfer of the registration certificate. The failure to report the transfer may involve some penalties under the law. But that certainly does not interdict the passing of property in the vehicle to the transferee. All that is required under the Act is that the transfer has to be notified; otherwise, certain penal consequences follow, but that does not make the transfer invalid. The moment the sale of the vehicle is effected intending to pass the property therein forthwith vis-a-vis the vehicle, the registered owner ceases to have any proprietary interest. It may be that, till there is an endorsement on the registration certificate, ostensibly the transferor is the owner. But, the beneficial interest including the right to possession, vests in the transferee. The registration book of a vehicle is not a document of title but is evidence of title and its absence at the time of sale, should put a purchaser on inquiry."

Therefore, both on facts and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the vehicle was transferred to one Mahadevan under Ex. B-1 by the first respondent and the petition was not maintainable against him. To this extent, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal.

The dismissal of the petition by the Tribunal on the ground stated above is attacked by the learned advocate for the appellants on the ground that although the vehicle had been transferred to some other person by virtue of the settled law, the liability to honour the award still rests with the transferee and the Insurance Company as laid down in Madineni Kondaiah''s case 1985 (2) ALT 88 : 1986 ACJ 1. He also contends that in such an event, it was open for the Tribunal either to suo motu direct the impleading of the transferee or to give an opportunity to the appellants to make an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead such a party. There is all the force in such a contention. The fact that the vehicle was transferred to one Mahadevan did not end the task of the Tribunal to enquire into the claim petition and fix the liability on certain persons to pay the compensation by virtue of Section 110-B of the Act which reads as follows;

"Section 110-B: Award of the Claims Tribunal- On receipt of an application for compensation made u/s 110-A, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them as the case may be."

The question is not whether anybody is impleaded as a party or not. But, the question as per the provision stated above to be determined by the Tribunal is as to who should pay the amount. The Tribunal was bound to determine whether the amount was liable to be paid by Mahadevan, the transferee or by any other person including the insurance company. The dismissal of the petition in such a situation by the Tribunal was beyond the implication of Section 110-B of the Act and also beyond the justice in dealing with the claim of the legal heirs of the deceased. Mr. Sundara Rajan, the learned Advocate has pointed out that when the claimants did not make an application to implead such a party the Tribunal had no option except to dismiss the petition. It is settled in the latest pronouncement of our High Court in Krishna Reddy Vs. K. Ramulamma and others, that the Claims Tribunal is empowered to evolve its own procedure in dealing with claim applications and has all powers of Civil Court and may resort to procedure laid down in CPC on principles of justice, equity and good conscience and the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC are not barred to proceedings initiated under the M.V. Act. Moreover, the law is also settled that a Tribunal under the Act has the trappings of a Court and can invoke the powers of a Civil Court as far as possible in the absence of any provision either in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder. Moreover, sub-clause (sic. sub-section) (2) of Section 110-C of the Act also gives such a clear indication to make use of the provisions of CPC in such a situation. In that situation, by following the principles of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC it was open for the Tribunal itself to implead the transferee or call upon the claimants to make an application to implead such a party so that opportunity could have been given to the transferee or any other person to determine the compensation and the liability in regard to the award. Instead, the Tribunal has mechanically dismissed the petition and that cannot be supported. In regard to the second ground for dismissal of the petition, it is true that the mother of the deceased is not impleaded as a party. It is also true that by virtue of Section 110-A(l) of the Act, the proviso to sub-clause (sic. clause) (c) imposes an obligation on the part of the legal representatives either one or all of them to file it on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives and the legal representatives who have not so joined shall be joined as respondents to the application. The expression ''shall'' therein is sought to be interpreted as mandatory by the Tribunal. Such an interpretation is not permissible in view of Section 110-B of the Act as extracted above and in view of sub-clause (sic. clause) (c) of Section, 110-A(1) of the Act. In such a situation, ''shall'' should be read as ''may'' as long as the petition is filed for the benefit of all the legal representatives and the dependents of the deceased. Even where all the legal representatives or the dependants are not impleaded as parties to a claim petition, the Tribunal while deciding the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation u/s 110-A of the Act is bound to apportion the compensation and while doing so, the portion of the compensation amount to which the persons who are not impleaded as parties (are entitled) shall be set apart and only that portion of the amount to which the claimants or the parties to the petition are entitled will be paid to them. The letter and spirit of sub-clause (sic. sub-rule) (2) of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is so emphatic that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudiciate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. The underlined portion is so emphatic that such a direction either to strike down any party to the proceedings or to add any party can be done either suo motu or with the application of the parties. Particularly, the act being a beneficial social legislation is intended to award the compensation to the persons who are entitled to receive it under the law to be adjudicated by the Tribunal and not to resort to the technical jargons of the procedural justice forgetting the real justice. That is what is done by the Tribunal. The insurance company was already on record and the transferee was only to be brought on record. In that situation, the dismissal of the petition by the Tribunal cannot be supported.

The appeal has to succeed. But, the matter cannot be left at that stage without issuing proper directions to the Tribunal so as to effectively and fully render the justice to the persons involved in that proceedings. For that purpose, the appeal is allowed with the following directions.

The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the petition shall be restored to file. The finding that the vehicle is transferred by the first respondent in favour of one Mahadevan is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal shall either suo motu implead Mahadevan as a party regarding which the first respondent shall furnish the particulars or may direct the claimants to make a formal application to implead Mahadevan and that shall be disposed of after issuing notices to the proposed party to be impleaded and after hearing both the sides and if necessary after holding necessary enquiry in the matter. It is made very clear that the finding as above, shall be conclusive as between the claimants and respondents 1 and 2 and shall be subject to reconsideration after service of notice to Mahadevan whereby the first respondent will also be entitled to cross- examine any of the witnesses examined in the case, if so advised. The matter being old, the Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the petition expeditiously within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, however, with liberty to seek extension of time, if necessary. No costs.