BABY VARGHESE Vs. ANITHA ROY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent in OP (MV) No. 1458/2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, who is the registered owner of the offending vehicle is the appellant in this case. The issue raised in this appeal is regarding the liability if any on the part of the registered owner of a motor vehicle in a case where the accident occurred subsequent to the transfer of ownership of the vehicle but before effecting/taking steps for any alterations in the records of the registering authority. According to the appellant, he cannot be saddled with the liability when the user of the vehicle was not under his possession or control, just because his name was not substituted in the registration certificate, by the name of the transferee who was in actual and physical possession and user of the vehicle and at whose negligence the accident occurred. The factual circumstances leading to this appeal are as follows: Deceased Roy Mathew was riding a kinetic Honda scooter along the K-K road on 02/01/2006 at 11.45 p.m., when an Ambassador car with registration No. KL4/D 9310 driven by one Sri. K.A. John-the 6th respondent in the appeal, which came in the opposite direction, knocked him down, causing fatal injuries to him. He succumbed to the injuries at KMC hospital, Vadavathoor, on the same day. Respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Roy Mathew, filed claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation towards the death caused by the motor vehicle accident. The appellant herein was the 1st respondent and the 6th respondent herein was the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. They filed separate written statements opposing the claims. In the written statement filed by the appellant, it was stated that he had sold the vehicle to one Andrews K. Abraham as per sale agreement dated 02/06/2004 and handed over physical possession of the Ambassador car to him; the said Andrews K. Abraham sold the car to Sri. K.A. John-the 6th respondent, as per sale agreement executed on 28/07/2004; appellant had already entrusted Sri. Andrews K. Abraham-the transferee of the vehicle-to carry out all the formalities required on transfer of the vehicle by proper intimation to the authorities. He further stated that consequent to the accident, the vehicle was seized by the police; 6th respondent got the vehicle in his custody from the Police Station, on executing kychit, admitting that he was the owner of the car at the relevant time. The 6th respondent herein filed written statement disputing the negligence on his part while alleging negligence on the part of the deceased himself. The Tribunal found that accident occurred due to the negligence of the 6th respondent, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time and passed an award for a sum of Rs. 7,72,000/- towards compensation. As the appellant continued to be the registered owner as per the records of registering authority, appellant was directed to pay the compensation. However he was permitted to realise the same from the 6th respondent.

(2.) The evidence before the Tribunal consisted of oral evidence by way of the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 and documentary evidence through Exts. A1 to A7 on behalf of the claimants and testimony of RW 1 to 3 and documents Exts. B1 to B3 on behalf of 1st respondent/appellant. Ext. B1 is the agreement dated 02/06/2004, by which the appellant sold the vehicle to Andrews K. Abraham. Ext. B2 is the agreement by which the said Andrews K. Abraham had sold the car to Sri. K.A. John-the 6th respondent herein. Ext. B3 is the kychit executed by the 6th respondent for getting the car released in his custody from the Police Station, after the accident. In order to prove the sale, appellant examined Sri. Andrews K. Abraham as RW 1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mannarkkad Police Station was examined as RW 3 in order to prove the kychit executed by the 6th respondent in Crime Number 1/2006 to get the car released to him. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not taken any steps for getting the particulars of transfer entered in the records of the Registering authorities and had not taken any steps to intimate the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to the Regional Transport Authority. On account of this the appellant himself continued to be the registered owner of the car as per the records kept in the office of the registering authorities. Interestingly none of these respondents have taken any steps for getting the vehicle insured also and hence there was no insurance coverage for the vehicle at the relevant time.

(3.) The Tribunal found that the appellant continued to be the owner of the vehicle within the meaning of the definition of that term under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), according to which, 'owner' means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such 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 arrangement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. Going by the definition, the Tribunal found that the 1st respondent himself is the owner of the car. It was further found that Section 50 of the Act mandates that a transferor shall report the factum of transfer of vehicle within a period of 14 days of the transfer in the prescribed form to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected, simultaneously sending a copy of the same to the transferee. It also mandates the transferee to report the transfer of the vehicle within a period of 30 days of the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides, or conducts business and to forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and copy of the report from the transferor, in order that the particulars of transfer be entered in the certificate of registration and on such receipt of a report or application, the duty of the registering authority to cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration and to communicate the same to the transferor and to the original registering authority. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred solely because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the ambassador car-the 6th respondent herein. It was therefore held that the appellant, who is the registered owner of the car and the 6th respondent-the driver of the car, were liable to pay the compensation. Appellant was directed to pay the compensation and was permitted to recover the same from the 6th respondent.