AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. T. Vaiphei, Acting, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the award dated 20-12-2012 passed by the learned member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in T.S. (MAC) No. 09 of 2012. Mr. S. Lodh, the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, Mr. P.B. Dhar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Ms. P. Dhar, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 and Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, have been heard at length.
What happened in this case is that on 25-11-2011 at about 7.30 PM, when the deceased, namely, Jaithang Moni Halam, who was riding in a motorcycle bearing registration No. TR-02-6897, was about to reach Bagbassa, one passer-by suddenly appeared in front of the bike and to save the passer-by, he dashed against a culvert. A pillion rider was also riding on the ill-fated motor cycle. As a result of the accident, both the deceased and the pillion rider fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased ultimately succumbed to his injuries. The deceased was said to be earning Rs. 6,250/- per month as a contract teacher and was about 24 years old at the time of the accident. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmanagar, which was registered as T.S. (MAC) No. 9 of 2012. The claim was contested by the appellant-insurer as well as the owner of the motor cycle, who is impleaded as the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5 took the stance that he is not the owner of the motorcycle as he had already sold it to the deceased before the accident had taken place. Brushing aside the contentions of both the appellant and the respondent No. 5, the learned Member of the Tribunal passed the impugned award as follows:
1.
Pecuniary loss
�
Rs. 2,72,000/-
2.
Funeral expenses
�
Rs. 3,000/-
3.
Loss of consortium
�
Rs. 10,000/-
Total
...
Rs. 2,85,000/-
Thus, the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal upon the claimant-respondents came to Rs. 2,85,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 10-2-2012 i.e. from the date of the claim petition.
In assailing the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the Tribunal has completely overlooked the fact that when the monthly income of the deceased was admittedly Rs. 6,250/- per month, i.e. Rs. 75,000/-, which exceeded Rs. 40,000/- per annum, compensation cannot be assessed in accordance with Section 163-A of the Act: the award so made under Section 163-A of the Act is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. To fortify his contentions, the learned counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 45. He next submits that as the deceased was the owner of the ill-fated motorcycle and was driving the vehicle by himself and was responsible for the accident, the appellant has no liability to satisfy the award. Strong reliance is placed by him on the decision of this Court in Suchitra Choudhury (Dey) and ors. v. Naresh Debbarma, (2015) 1 TLR 459 to support his submission in this behalf. Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 maintains that the respondent No. 5 had already transferred his ownership of the motorcycle in favour of the deceased before the accident took place, he cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The first point for consideration in this appeal is whether the ill-fated motorcycle had already been sold by the respondent No. 5 to the deceased before the accident took place? There is no dispute, nor can there be any dispute, that the motorcycle was still registered in the name of the respondent No. 5 though he claimed that he had sold it to the deceased on 6-2-2010 (the accident occurred on 25-11-2011) at a consideration of Rs. 21,000/-, and that the vehicle was taken possession of by the latter immediately after the sale. He further claimed that the deceased and he put their respective signatures in Form No. 29 and 30 for transfer of ownership of the motorcycle in the name of the deceased, a fact duly recorded by the I.O. of the case in his final report submitted to the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dharmanagar, North Tripura. However, the Certificate of Registration as well as the Certificate of Insurance which were exhibited as Ext. A series reveal that he was still the registered owner of the motorcycle at the time of the accident. The definition of the term "owner" is defined by Section 2(30) of the Act, which may be reproduced below:
"2(30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such a person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement."
I may also reproduce hereunder the provisions relating to transfer of ownership and transfer of certificate of insurance provided for in Sections 50 and 157 of the Act as they may have a bearing on the construction of the term "owner", and the same are as follows:
"50. Transfer of ownership.-(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,-
(a) the transferor shall,-
(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and
(ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty-five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in sub-clause (i)-
(A) the no objection certificate obtained under Section 48; or
(B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,-
(I) the receipt obtained under sub-section (2) of Section 48; or
(II) the postal acknowledgement received by the transferor if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgement due to the registering authority referred to in Section 48, together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted;
(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.
(2) Where-
(a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, or
(b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public auction conducted by, or on behalf of Government, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle or, as the case may be, who has purchased or acquired the motor vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, in such manner, accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer within the period specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1), as the case may be, or if the person who is required to make an application under sub-section (2) (hereafter in this section referred to as the other person) fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the transferor or the transferee, or the other person, as the case may be, to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under Section 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under sub-section (5):
Provided that action under Section 177 shall be taken against the transferor or the transferee or the other person, as the case may be, where he fails to pay the said amount.
* * *
Transfer of certificate of insurance.-(1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer.
1[Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance.]
(2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.
Recently, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the term "owner" as defined by Section 2(30) of the Act in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Reshma, (2015) 3 SCC 679 and explained as under:
"On a plain reading of the aforesaid definition, it is demonstrable that a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle and, where motor vehicle is the subject of hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is the owner. It also stipulates that in case of a minor, the guardian of such a minor shall be treated as the owner. Thus, the intention of the legislature in case of a minor is mandated to treat the guardian of such a minor as the "owner". This is the first exception to the definition of the term "owner". The second exception that has been carved out is that in relation to a motor vehicle, which is the subject of hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of vehicle under that agreement is the owner. Be it noted, the legislature has deliberately carved out these exceptions from registered owners thereby making the guardian of a minor liable, and the person in possession of the vehicle under the agreements mentioned in the dictionary clause to be the owners for the purposes of this Act."
From the paragraph extracted above, it is plainly clear that normally, a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle. However, the legislature has carved out two exceptions from registered owners, namely, in case of a minor, the guardian of a minor is treated as the owner. The second exception is that the person in possession of the motor vehicle, which is under the subject of hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of hypothecation, is treated as the owner of the vehicle. In the instant case, it is no body�s case that the motorcycle in question is the subject of hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of hypothecation. It may also be noted that the procedure for transfer of ownership or transfer of certificate of insurance in favour of the deceased by the respondent No. 5 had not been completed at the time of the accident. Consequently, the respondent No. 5 remained as the registered owner of the ill-fated motorcycle at the time of the accident. In that view of the matter, it is not difficult to hold that the deceased was not the owner of the motorcycle in question when the vehicle met with an accident on 25-11-2011. The net effect of this finding is that the deceased was indeed a third party thereby enabling his legal representatives such as the claimant-respondents herein to claim compensation from the respondent No. 5, who validly insured the vehicle with the insurer; the appellant-insurer is thus vicariously responsible for the liability to be satisfied by the respondent No. 5.
Coming now to the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Act is misconceived inasmuch as the annual income of the deceased exceeded Rs. 40,000/- at the time of the accident. In my judgment, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the insurer, but considering the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,85,000/-, which is very much on the lower side for a case of death as the recent trend in the amount of compensation ultimately awarded by the Apex Court, this is not a fit case for the interference of this Court. At the most, the claimant-respondents can be asked to file a fresh claim petition under Section 166 of the Act in which case they would have been awarded a much higher amount of compensation. In my opinion, the learned Member was unnecessarily economical in his assessment of the amount of compensation payable to the claimant-respondents and ought to have been much more generous in a case of this nature. In this view of the matter, I am of the firm view that no injustice is likely to be caused to the insurer by upholding the impugned award irrespective of whether the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Act.
The result of the foregoing discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. The appellant-insurer is, therefore, directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing the claim petition as ordered by the learned Member of the Tribunal within two months from today. No cost. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the appellant-insurer for compliance. Transmit the L.C. record.