B D SHARMA Vs. ZARINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an order of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad dated 5. 2. 96 awarding a compensation for a sum of rs. 1,34,400 on account of death of the deceased at the age of 27 years leaving aside wife and children. The appeal has been preferred by the owner by saying that on the fateful day, i. e. , 6. 1. 1993 he was not the owner of the vehicle. The sale of the vehicle was done on 15. 11. 1992 in favour of one Rajendra Prasad. However, court disbelieved the story on the ground that the vehicle was not registered in the name of Rajendra Prasad on the fateful day. That apart, the learned counsel also took a point that the amount of compensation is on the higher side since as per the Minimum wages Act, 1948, the salary of a skilled handloom worker is Rs. 632 per month but the learned Tribunal assessed at Rs. 1,200 per month. In support of his case, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has cited two judgments reported in Cheddi prasad v. Kamrunnisha, 2003 ACJ 781 (Allahabad), to establish that transfer of ownership of the vehicle is complete after letter of transfer and delivery of possession on the same date. He further relied upon rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Kailash Nath Kothari, 1997 ACJ 1148 (SC), to establish possessor of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation for the accident. However, such principle cannot be applicable to this case where the factual dispute is otherwise.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended before this court that the paper book contains a notice dated 17. 7. 1994 sent under registered post which was served by the concerned advocate of Rajendra Prasad mentioning about the transfer of the vehicle on 15. 11. 1992. Therefore, he contended that if the vehicle has already been transferred on 15. 11. 1992 what was the occasion of writing this letter on 17. 7. 1994 to the said transferee is unknown to him.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the-analysis and observation of the court below. We found that the court below had disbelieved that the ownership of the vehicle was in favour of the alleged transferee on the fateful day. According to us, the sale cannot be construed as an appropriate sale to attract the liability of the appellant owner unless it is proved beyond doubt as factually available in the case of Chhedi prasad (supra ). Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has referred in the case of Abdul Wasi v. Bhairam Deen, 2004 ACJ 885 (Allahabad) and said that a Division bench of this High Court held that ownership of a vehicle is defined under section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which means the person (s) in whose name the vehicle is registered. Therefore, registration is essential part to prove transfer unless it is proved beyond doubt as in the case of Chhedi Prasad (supra ). In S. N. Shanmugham v. Shankarlal Jain, 2004 acj 1346 (Madras), it was held by a division Bench of Madras High Court that so long as necessary corrections are made in the R. C. book by the competent registering authority, insofar as the third parties are concerned, the transferor still continued to remain liable as his name continued in the records of R. T. O. as owner. In S. N. Shanmugham's case (supra), the court had followed the laying down ratio of Hon'ble supreme Court judgment reported in Dr. T. V. Jose v. Chacko P. M. , 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC), which speaks that the title and/or ownership of the vehicle can be transferred by appropriate documentation which was required to be done but unless or until it was entered into the record of the Regional transport Authority as owner, the original owner cannot escape from the liability.