ASHIYANA MAMAD SAMA Vs. ARVINDBHAI PRAHLAD PREMJIYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Nilesh M. Shah for the respondents. Perused the record.

(2.) The petitioners herein are legal heirs of victim of a road accident. They have preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition No.44 of 2015 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kachchh at Bhuj on 31.1.2015 because of accidental death of one Mamad Kana Sama, who was hit by a Maruti Car bearing registration No.GJ-5PP-4931 on 17.1.2015 when he was walking on a road near Mota-Paiya Village in Taluka: Bhuj of Kachchh District. He received grievous injuries on head, which resulted into his death and therefore, present petitioners being his legal heirs and dependents have claimed an amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- as compensation.

(3.) It is undisputed fact that all the vehicles in India need to be insured minimum for third party risk by its owner, but unfortunately, it seems that present respondents being driver and owner of the above vehicle have failed to follow such statutory provision in getting their vehicle insured. If such vehicle is insured, then, ultimately liability would rest upon the insurance company. Thereby, driver and owner would not have to bother for payment of compensation, but in the present case, when respondents No.1 and 2, who are driver and owner respectively, have failed to insure their vehicle, they are also responsible to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the victim, because of death of a pedestrian by their vehicle. Though respondents are free to take all the defence, both in criminal case against the driver as well as the present claim in the main claim petition, at this stage, prima facie there is no dispute that there was a vehicular accident as discussed herein above, wherein Mamad Sama has expired. Therefore, prima facie, respondents are liable to pay compensation to the heirs and dependents of such deceased. For such liability, the other issue is regarding ownership of the vehicle when respondents have come forward with a plea that respondent No.2 is not the owner of the vehicle, but he has sold it to respondent No.1. Thereby, in any case, respondent No.1 is both driver and proposed owner, whereas, respondent No.2 is registered owner of the vehicle and therefore, they both would be jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. So far as the ownership of the vehicle in question is concerned, petitioners have produced on record of the trial Court, a registration certificate (RC) book of the vehicle involved in the accident. Whereas, respondents have produced a writing for selling the vehicle at Mark 16/1 before the Tribunal. Petitioners have produced certified copies of such documents produced on record of the Tribunal, which are to be taken on record of this petition. Perusal of the RC Book now makes it clear that vehicle in question is registered in the name of respondent No.2 herein; whereas, by placing the writing regarding sale of such vehicle, respondent No.2 has tried to prove that vehicle has been sold by him to respondent No.1 on 21.10.2014. However, the perusal of such writing makes it clear that it is not completing the sale transaction of the vehicle between two parties when it is categorically disclosed in such writing that only Rs. 20,000/- has been paid by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2, as an agreement entered into for the sale transaction, and remaining amount is to be paid within six months. It is also stated in the same writing that formality of transferring the vehicle by signing the T.T.O. Form, which is a prescribed form under Motor Vehicle Rules for transferring the vehicle, to be signed only if the remaining amount is paid. Therefore, in any case, such writing cannot be considered as a sale transaction of the vehicle by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 and till respondent No.2 is registered owner, as per the registration certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer, copy of which is on record, it cannot be stated that respondent No.2 is not liable for such vehicle.