RAVI KUMAR Vs. JITENDER LATHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal in FAO No. 4690 of 2007 is at the instance of the driver who was admittedly a purchaser of the vehicle by delivery on 09.10.1993 from the registered owner. The accident took place subsequently on 05.11.2003 Registered owner as well as the subsequent purchaser who was also incidentally the driver, were made parties. The Tribunal has made registered owner also liable. The judgment is erroneous, for transfer of owner of a motor vehicle took place by delivery under Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act. Registration is only a facilitative provision provided under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in cases where the subsequent purchaser was not a party, Courts have made registered owners liable. But however if the subsequent purchaser is himself a party that ought to be taken as sufficient to anchor the liability on the subsequent purchaser irrespective of the fact whether there had been a transfer of registration or not. The liability cast on the registered owner is erroneous in a case where there was a transfer of vehicle by delivery to the driver on 09.10.2003 that is prior to the accident. This Court has had an occasion to deal with the liability issue in case where the registration was not transferred to a subsequent purchaser. In Ashutosh Batra v. Annu and others, 2011 163 PunLR 113, I have made the registered owner liable in a case where the owner was allowed recovery from the subsequent purchaser. In P.P. Mohammed v. K. Rajappan and others, 2008 17 SCC 624, the Court was making a subsequent purchaser also liable. This, according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the driver who became the owner, ought to make the liability of the subsequent purchaser to be shared by the earlier owner. The Supreme Court was not laying down any proposition that a subsequent purchaser who is not a registered owner cannot be made liable. There is no valid ground to assail the liability caused on the subsequent purchaser who was incidentally a driver as held in the decision of Supreme Court in Vasantha Vishwanathan and others v. V.K. Elayalwara and others, 2001 8 SCC 133. I dismiss the appeal in FAO No. 4690 of 2007 filed by the driver/subsequent purchaser before the accident.

(2.) This will, therefore, dispose of the appeal filed in FAO No. 4090 of 2007 filed by the registered owner. The appeal filed by the registered owner is allowed. The liability shall be only on the subsequent purchaser.

(3.) The appeal in FAO No. 3516 of 2007 is for enhancement of compensation for death that had resulted to a male aged 41 years. He was a veterinary doctor in a Government hospital. The claimants were widow and two minor children. He was drawing an income of Rs. 24,479/-. I will make a provision for future prospect of increase by 30% and deduct 20% as going towards tax. I will apply 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and adopt a multiplier of 14. I will also provided for Rs. 1 lac for loss of consortium to wife and Rs. 1 lac for loss of love and affection for each child as provided in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2014 173 PunLR 779 (SC) and will also provide for Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The various heads of compensation are tabulated as under:-