SODHAN SINGH Vs. SURAJ NARAIN MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25th April, 1978 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur. It was ordered by means of the impugned order that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 49,600/- to the widow Smt. Meera Devi and a minor daughter named Sandhya along with pendente lite and future interest at 6 per cent per annum. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that admittedly appellant is the owner of the registered Vehicle No. UPE 1238. The accident in the present case took place on the 28th October, 1974, as a result of which admittedly one Om Prakash died. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is to the effect that the accident took place on account of rashness and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle. After considering various facts the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the widow of the deceased and his minor daughter were entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 49,600/-. The contention of the appellant is that on the date of occurrence he was not the owner of the vehicle since he had transferred the same to one Hardwar, son of Rama Nand, on the fifth July, 1974. According to him, when the accident took place on 28th October, 1974, the vehicle did not belong to him. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellant on the ground that since the appellant has not complied with Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act of intimating to the registering authority within stipulated time, it would be deemed that he continued to be the owner of the jeep. It is on this ground that compensation was decreed as against the present appellant. According to the counsel for both the parties Hardwar was also a party to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, but it seems that he had not filed any objection. The Tribunal decreed compensation only as against the appellant on account of the said accident.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

(3.) SECTION 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act merely deals with transfer of ownership, which stipulates "where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred, the transferor shall within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected.." Similarly, it also stipulated that "the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides, 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." It is significant to note here that Sub-section (1-A) of Section 31 refers to the consequences of non-compliance by either transferor or transferee under Subsection (1). The consequence referred therein is to pay in lieu of any action that may be taken against the transferor or transferee under Section 112, such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees. The only consequence itself reveals that non-compliance of intimation cannot constitute a ground for inferring that the vehicle has not been transferred. The only consequence referred therein is penalty of payment of rupees one hundred. In view of this, it cannot be said that mere non-compliance of Section 31 an inference could be drawn that ownership has not been transferred. The learned Tribunal committed an error in drawing that inference only on the basis of Section 31 of the Act. In fact, the Tribunal ought to have gone on the basis of evidence on record specially when the transferee was also a party in the said proceeding to record a finding independent of Section 31 of the Act whether the said vehicle was really transferred to Hardwar or not.