SURYA SANKARAM K Vs. J ESWARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant Surya Sankaram who sold the vehicle involved in the accident is liable to pay the compensation awarded to the injured in the motor accident which took place on 13-4-1984.

(2.) The facts giving rise for this appeal are as follows: The 1st respondent herein is the daughter of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent is a minor and she is under the care and custody of the 2nd respondent. On 13-4-1984 at about 11-00 a.m. while the 1st respondent was proceeding on the road, a Scooter bearing No. ADN 1072 being driven by the 3rd respondent Parupudi Srinivasa Rao, came from behind and hit the 1st respondent and on account of it, she sustained injuries and she had taken . treatment in the hospital. The police also registered a case against the 3rd respondent herein and it ended in his conviction. In the hospital, she was also treated by the Doctor P.W-1. The appellant herein is the original owner of the Scooter involved in the accident. He sold it to R.W-3 Jagadishwara Rao, who is no other than the elder brother of the 3rd respondent herein. The 1st respondent and 2nd respondent herein filed O.P.No.108/86 claiming a sum of Rs.52,632/- as compensation against the appellant herein and the 3rd respondent and 4th respondent herein. During the enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.l to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.l to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the learned District & Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram held that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the 3rd respondent herein and further held that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured with the 4th respondent herein (4th respondent in the O.P.) on the date of accident and also awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/- as compensation against the appellant and 3rd respondent herein. It is the case of the appellant that he had sold away the vehicle involved in the accident by the date of accident to R.W.3, but 'C' Book was not transferred in the name of the transferee. The learned trial Judge observed that if 'C' Book is not transferred in the name of the purchaser, the liability cannot shift to the purchaser and, therefore, the appellant herein is also liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants. Aggrieved of that Award, the appellant has come up with this appeal.

(3.) As seen from the impugned Award and the evidence on record, it is admitted that the appellant herein was the original owner of the Scooter bearing No. ADN 1072 and it was sold to R.W.3-Jagadishwara Rao, who is the elder brother of the 3rd respondent herein. Ex.B-4 is the photostat copy of the agreement with regard to the sale of the said Scooter in the name of Jagadishwara Rao. Jagadishwara Rao, who was examined as R.W.3, and respondent No.3 herein, who was examined as R.W.1, have categorically stated in their evidence that the said Scooter was purchased by R.W.3 and that they have also paid the entire sale consideration, but transfer was not registered in the name of R.W.3. They have also admitted that they have taken possession of the said Scooter by the date of accident and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said Scooter. It is also not disputed that the 3rd respondent herein, who is respondent No.1 in the main O.P., was driving the said Scooter at the time of the accident.