Rama Nand Sharma vs Vipin Kumar and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the same award.

The undisputed facts of the case are that on 21.1.1999, claimant Vipin Kumar was travelling by Maruti Van No. DNA-7606 which according to him was owned by Rama Nand Sharma, Appellant in FAO No. 403 of 2004. It is also not disputed that the van fell down in a Nallah and the claimant sustained injuries and filed a Claim Petition for the grant of compensation.

Initially, Rama Nand Sharma who was driving the vehicle was made the sole Respondent since it was alleged that he was both the driver and the owner of the vehicle. Later the petition was amended and M/s. Naveen Filter Industry, Ramesh Kumar and Chet Ram Bekta were impleaded as being owners of the vehicle in question.

Rama Nand Sharma denied that the vehicle was owned by him. He in fact denied that it was being driven by him at the time of the accident. He claimed that the vehicle was owned by M/s. Naveen Filter Industry.

M/s. Naveen Filter Industry denied its liability to pay any compensation to the claimant on the allegation that it had sold the vehicle, in question, to one Rakesh Kumar of Delhi.

Ramesh Kumar and Chet Ram Bekta in their separate replies denied their liability to pay the compensation to the claimant on the ground that they were not the owners of the vehicle and they have no concern with the same.

The learned Tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,74,000/-. M/s. Naveen Filter Industry which was shown to be the owner of the vehicle in the official record, i.e., registration certificate, was made liable to pay the compensation alongwith the driver Sh. Rama Nand Sharma, Respondent.

Sh. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate urges that the claimant has failed to show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver.

In my view, this argument is totally without any merit. The vehicle went off the road and once the vehicle went off the road, the principle of res-ipsa-loquitur is applicable and the burden was on the driver of the vehicle to show that the accident did not take place due to his negligence.

As far as quantum is concerned, the amount awarded is absolutely just and reasonable and calls for no interference.

The only vexatious question which arises in this appeal is that which of the Respondents should be held liable to pay compensation. Admittedly, in the registration certificate and in all the official record, M/s. Naveen Filter Industry is still shown to be the owner of the vehicle. According to M/s. Naveen Filter Industry, it had sold the vehicle to Rakesh Kumar and reliance in this behalf is placed on the document Ext. R/1 which shows that the vehicle was sold to Rakesh Kumar who in turn sold the same to Ramesh Kumar, Respondent who did not step into the witness box. There is no proof that the vehicle was sold to Chet Ram Bekta or Rama Nand Sharma. No document in this behalf has been placed on record. However, it stands proved that Rama Nand Sharma was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.

This Court in FAO No. 43 of 1994 titled Ishwar Lal Chaudhary and Anr. v. National Insurance Co. and Ors. decided on 18.6.2008 held that even when a vehicle is transferred and the transfer is not reflected in the official record of the motor vehicle department, both the actual owner as well as the registered owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The driver is primarily responsible to pay the compensation and it is the owners of the vehicle who are also liable to pay the compensation.

Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed. It is made clear that in addition to M/s. Naveen Filter Industry, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3, Rama Nand Sharma and Ramesh Kumar, respectively are also held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award.

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.