J C CHENNARAYUDU Vs. N LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the 1st respondent in O. P. No. 36 of 1970 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Chittoor.

(2.) The appellant is the registered owner of the lorry APD 841 which met with an accident on 16-2-1970 at 5 a.m. on the Highway near Chittoor. As a result of the said accident one Rangaiah Naidu, and agriculturist who was crossing the road, was knocked down and his legs were severed. Three days thereafter i.e. on 19-2-1970 the victim of the accident expired. He was survived by his wife and two sons, who put in a claim for Rs. 50,000.00. To that claim petition they impleaded the 1st respondent the registered owner, the 2nd respondent, Scindia Insurance Company and the 3rd respondent, who is alleged to have purchased the vehicle in question. That claim was resisted by the 1st respondent inter alia on the ground that he sold the lorry to the 3rd respondent on 4-11-1969 and handed over possession of the vehicle to the 3rd respondent. As he was not the owner of the vehicle on the day it met with the accident, he was not liable for any damages. It is unnecessary for the purpose of the disposal of this appeal by the 1st respondent to go into the question whether the accident occurred due to rush and negligent driving. That is not disputed in this appeal. All that is contended is that the 1st respondent having sold away the vehicle long before the date of the accident, to the 3rd respondent and executed Ex. B. 1 sale note and delivered possession of the vehicle to the 3rd respondent, he was not liable to meet the claim of the legal representative of the deceased. The Insurance Company, which is the 2nd respondent also claimed that the registration of the vehicle was not transferred and insurance policy was issued in favour of the 1st respondent and as the 3rd respondent was the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident, it was not liable. The 3rd respondent chose to remain ex parte. It may not be out of place to note the fact that the 3rd respondent has neither admitted not denied the sale in his favour. If the sale was true, he would not have adopted this attitude towards the claim, but would have contested it. The Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence on record, awarded Rs. 20,000.00 by way of damages. Neither the insurance company nor the 3rd respondent has preferred any appeal. The only question that remains to be considered in this appeal by the 1st respondent is whether the 1st respondent parted with the ownership of the vehicle and was not liable to pay any damages.

(3.) That he continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle is not disputed. A policy was also taken by him with the 2nd respondent Insurance Company. When the 1st respondent claims that he had sold away the vehicle in question for a consideration of Rs. 19,116, executed Ex. B. 1 and also delivered possession of the vehicle to the 3rd respondent he has no title or interest in the vehicle. Merely because he continued to be the registered owner, he cannot be made liable. The transaction between the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent is evidenced by a written document, Ex. B.. 1 dated 4-11-1969. Under the said document a sum of Rs. 10,160.00 was paid by the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent and the possession of the vehicle together with C Certificate and applications for transfer of ownership addressed to the concerned Regional Transport Authorities were handed over to the 3rd respondent. The balance of consideration of Rs. 9,000.00 with interest at 1% per annum was agreed to be paid on the date of the transfer of C Certificate. There was also a specific stipulation in Ex. B. 1 that until the transfer is effected the 3rd respondent would ply the vehicle under the registration certificate and the road permit issued in the name of the 1st respondent. In view of this document, it is contended that the sale of the vehicle was completed on 4-11-1969 when Ex. B. 1 was executed. On the other hand, it is contended by the claimants that as the sale could not be completed in accordance with law, the parties specifically stipulated that the balance of consideration would be paid on the date of the transfer and until then the 3rd respondent would ply the vehicle in the name of the 1st respondent and under the permit issued to him.