V. MUTHUSWAMI GOUNDER Vs. THULASI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st defendant in a suit for recovery of damages caused to an auto -rickshaw on account of collision with his car, has preferred this second appeal. The 2nd defendant was the 1st defendant's driver. He was driving the car in the course of employment under the 1st defendant.

(2.) THE plaintiff was plying the auto -rickshaw for hire and her son who has given evidence as P.W. 1 was driving the said auto -rickshaw at the time of the accident. The Courts below have concurred in finding that the collision by which the auto -rickshaw was damaged was due to the rash and negligent act of the 1st defendant's driver. Damages have been assessed by the Courts below at a sum of Rs. 1,200. The finding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st defendant's driver and the quantum of damages assessed are findings of fact, not open to impeachment in second appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that, in assessing the damages, the Courts below have failed to advert to certain discrepancies in the dates of bills exhibited to prove purchase of damaged parts for the auto -rickshaw. No point has been made in the Courts below of any such discrepancy. Nor is the discrepancy irreconcilable with the plaintiff's case The substantial point raised by learned Counsel for the appellant is the locus standi of the plaintiff to institute the suit and claim damages.

(3.) THE auto -rickshaw in question was purchased by the plaintiff from one Ponnuswami for a sum of Rs. 6,150 about two years prior to the accident. This Ponnuswami himself had purchased it from another party, entering into an hire -purchase agreement with one Ramanathan Chettiar. The registration certificate for the vehicle stands in the name of Ponnuswami, and there is an entry about the hire -purchase agreement in the registration certificate. There has been no transfer of the registration certificate in the name of the plaintiff after her purchase from Ponnuswami. The purchase by the plaintiff was subject to liability under the hire -purchase agreement and statutory intimation of the sale in favour of the plaintiff was given to the registering authority. But the registering authority has not recorded the transfer of ownership in the registration certificate, as Ramanathan Chettiar was not willing to give his consent for transfer of registration till the amount due under the hire -purchase agreement was fully paid. Ponnuswami has given evidence as P.W. 2 about his sale of the vehicle to the plaintiff, and there is no dispute that factually the property in the vehicle has been transferred by the registered owner Ponnuswami to the plaintiff. The objection raised for the 1st defendant is that without a transfer of the registration certificate in her name, the plaintiff cannot claim to be the owner of the vehicle and sue for damages caused to it. Learned Counsel for the appellant relies on the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act IV of 1939, to non -suit the plaintiff. It is submitted that, unless there is a transfer of ownership as provided under Section 31 of the Act, the ownership of the vehicle remains with the registered owner. The transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle it is said is not complete without a change of registry.