AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Subbiah, J.—This appeal is filed by the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 1261 of 1986, aggrieved over the award dated 04.05.1990 passed by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras.
The case of the Appellant/claimant before theTribunal was that on 02.10.1985, while he was travellingas a passenger in an auto-rickshaw
bearing registrationNo.TMM 3533 from T. Nagar towards Kodambakkam, a car bearingregistration No. ADM 2175 from Habibullah Road
came in arash and negligent manner and dashed against the said autoand as a result of which, the auto capsized and theAppellant sustained
grievous injuries. Hence, he filed aclaim of Rs. one lakh as against the owner of the car,namely, the 1st Respondent herein and the insurer, the 2nd
Respondent insurance company.
The 1st Respondent, owner of the car, filed acounter stating that they were not the owners of the carbearing registration No. ADM 2175 at the
time of theaccident. The said vehicle was sold and delivered to oneSarath Babu, son of Subba Rao on 15.10.1982 and on the sameday, the 1st
Respondent obtained a letter from the saidsarath Babu, acknowledging the sale and delivery of thecar. Only on receipt of the court notice, the 1st
Respondent came to know that Sarath Babu has nottransferred the registration certificate in his name and,as such, the 1st Respondent cannot be
held responsible for the payment of compensation.
The 2nd Respondent insurance company has also fileda counter stating that the policy for the car in questionwas valid only upto 25.07.1985 and
the same was not inforce on the date of accident. Under such circumstances,the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
After filing of the counter statement by the 1stRespondent, the Appellant has impleaded Sarath Babu as the3rd Respondent to the claim petition.
The 3rd Respondenthas filed a counter statement stating that at the time ofaccident, the 3rd Respondent was the owner of the vehicle.Though
papers were sent for transfer of registrationcertificate and insurance, by oversight, the same were notprocessed. Thus, he prayed for the dismissal
of the claimpetition.
In order to prove the claim, the claimant examinedhimself as P.W.1 besides examining P.Ws.2 to 5 and marked 8documents as Exs.P-1 to P-8
and on the side of theRespondents, one Baskar Rao, the Managing Partner of the1st Respondent was examined as R.W.1 and three
documentswere marked as Exs.B-1 to B-3. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence both and oral and documentary, dismissed the claim petition
as against Respondents 1 and 2, holding that since the 3rd Respondent had admitted inthe counter that he is the owner of the car in question onthe
date of accident, he is liable to pay compensation ofRs. 52,000/-with interest. Challenging the said finding,the claimant has filed the present appeal.
Learned Counsel appearing for theAppellant/claimant submitted that though the 1st Respondenthad submitted that the vehicle was sold to the
3rdRespondent in the year 1982, the registration certificate,even on the date of accident, stood only in the name of the1st Respondent. The
registration certificate has not beentransferred in the name of the 3rd Respondent, as admittedby the 1st Respondent as well as the 3rd
Respondent intheir respective counter statements. Further, the policymarked on the side of the insurance company covering theperiod from
26.07.1984 to 25.07.1985, marked as Ex.R-1,stood in the name of the 1st Respondent only. Therefore, onthe date of accident, only the 1st
Respondent is the ownerof the vehicle and not the 3rd Respondent. Under suchcircumstances, the fining arrived at by the Tribunal thatthe 3rd
Respondent has to pay compensation is liable to be set aside and consequently, the 1st Respondent has to bedirected to pay the award amount. In
this regard, thelearned Counsel has also relied on the decisions reportedin Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. @ Thankachan and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC
748 and Pushpa @ Leela and Others Vs. Shakuntala and Others, .
Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the materials available on record.
On a perusal of the award, I find that originallythe claim was made by the Appellant as against the owner�the 1st Respondent and its insurer.
But the 2nd Respondentinsurance company had established before the Tribunal bymarking policy Ex.R-1 that on the date of accident, thepolicy
was not in force and the 2nd Respondent cannot beheld responsible to pay compensation at any cost. Since the1st Respondent had taken defence
stating that they had soldthe car in the year 1982 itself and the purchaser of thecar has not transferred the registration certificate in hisname, the
purchaser of the car was subsequently impleadedas the 3rd Respondent in the claim petition, who has alsoadmitted that the registration certificate
of the car wasnot transferred in his name. Now it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant/claimant that since the Registration
certificate was continued to be in the name of the 1st Respondent, the 1st Respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation. In this regard, an
useful reference could be placed from the decisions cited by the Appellant in this regard and in (2001) 8 SCC 748, the Hon''ble Supreme Court
has held as follows:
Mr. Iyer appearing for the Appellantsubmitted that the High Court was wrong inignoring the oral evidence on record. Hesubmitted that the oral
evidence clearly showedthat the Appellant was not the owner of the caron the date few the accident. Mr. Iyer submittedthat merely because the
name had not beenchanged in the records of RTO did not mean thatthe ownership of the vehicle had not beentransferred. Mr. Iyer submitted that
the realowner of the car was Mr. Roy Thomas. Mr. Iyersubmitted that Mr. Roy Thomas had been madeparty-Respondent 9 to these appeals. He
pointedout that an advocate had filed appearance onbehalf of Mr. Roy Thomas but had then appliedfor and was permitted to withdraw
theappearance. He pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas 7had been duly served and a public notice hadalso been issued. He pointed out that Mr.
RoyThomas had chosen not to appear in theseappeals. He submitted that the liability, ifany, was of Mr. Roy Thomas.
We agree with Mr. Iyer that the HighCourt was not right in holding that theAppellant continued to be the owner as the namehad not been
changed in the records of RTO.There can be transfer of title by payment ofconsideration and delivery of the car. Theevidence on record shows
that ownership of thecar had been transferred. However, theAppellant still continued to remain liable tothird parties as his name continued in
therecords of RTO as the owner. The Appellantcould not escape that liability by merelyjoining Mr. Roy Thomas in these appeals. Mr. RoyThomas
was not a party either before MACT orthe High Court, In these appeals, we cannot andwill not go into the question of inter seliability between the
Appellant and Mr. RoyThomas. It will be for the Appellant to adoptappropriate proceedings against Mr. Roy Thomas if, in law, he is entitled to do
so.
The Hon''ble Apex Court, in Pushpa @ Leela and Others Vs. Shakuntala and Others, , has held as follows:
The decision in T.V. Jose (Dr.) 2002 SCC (Crl.) 94 was rendered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But having regard to theprovisions of
Section 2(30) and Section 59 ofthe Act, as noted above, the ratio of thedecision shall apply with equal force to thefacts of the case arising under
the 1988 Act.On the basis of these decisions, theinescapable conclusion is that Jitender Gupta,whose name continued in the records of
theregistering authority as the owner of thetruck was equally liable for payment of thecompensation amount. Further, since aninsurance policy in
respect of the truck wastaken out in his name he was identified andthe claim will be shifted to the insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
It is clear from the dictum laid down in the saiddecisions that the person, whose name continue to be in the record of the registering authority as
the owner of thevehicle in question is liable for payment of compensation. In the instant case, it is admitted by Respondents 1 and 3that the
registration certificate stood even on the date ofaccident in the name of the 1st Respondent only and thatapart, Ex.R-1, the copy of policy, would
show that even inthe year 1985, the premium was paid only in the name of the1st Respondent. Under such circumstances, in my
consideredopinion, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal directingthe 3rd Respondent to pay compensation and dismissing theclaim petition as
against the 1st and 2nd Respondents isliable to be interfered with and as such, the said findingof the Tribunal is set aside. So far as the quantum
ofcompensation is concerned, this Court feels that it is justand proper and hence, it is confirmed.
Consequently, this Court holds that the 1st Respondentis liable to pay the compensation to the Appellant/claimantand directs that the 1st
Respondent shall pay the awardamount of Rs. 52,000/-with interest at 12% per annum within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
thisorder. The civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed ofaccordingly. No. costs.