UNITED MOTORS OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MATHURALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE, facts giving rise to this second appeal by the defendant No. 1 M/s United Motors of Rajasthan may be stated as follows: On 29-4-1954 at about 10. 30 A. M defendant No. 3 Hargovind was driving motor bus No. RJL 306 on Sawai Mansingh Hospital Road in the city of Jaipur and the plaintiff was coming on a bicycle from the opposite direction. It is alleged that the right mudguard of the bus came in contact with the left knee of the plaintiff as a result of which the 'patela' of the plaintiff was broken to pieces and certain other in juries were also received by him on his head and other parts of the body. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 27th April, 1955 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 3400/- against defendant No. 1 M/s United Motors of Rajasthan, defendant No 2 M/s Shanker Bus Service, Jaipur and defendant No. 3 Hargovind driver. THE plaintiff's case was that the bus by which the accident was caused was registered in the name of the defendant No. 1 who was consequently liable for payment of the damages on account of rash and negligent driving by their servant Hargovind. Alternatively the decree was claimed on the ground of vicarious liability against the defendant No. 2 as in reply to the notice served by the plaintiff on defendant No. 1, the latter had replied that the bus had been sold by them to defendant No. 2 as far back as on 7-8-1952. Thus to be on safe side besides the driver the plaintiff claimed decree for damages on the ground of vicarious liability either against defendant No. 1 in whose name the vehicle was registered or in the alternative against defendant No. 2, in case the Court found that the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident was defendant No. 2.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by all the defendants who filed separate written statements. A notice of the suit was also given to the Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. , under sec. 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (which will hereinafter be called the Act), but the Insurance Company did not contest the suit.

(3.) IN Vimal Rai vs. Gurcharan Singh (4) it was observed: "10. There is another aspect of this matter. To my mind, the sale of a motor vehicle will not be governed by the ordinary law relating to sales of movable property. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 makes it compulsory for owner of a motor vehicle to get the motor vehicle registered with the Registering Authority (vide sec. 22 ). The Act prescribes by sec 24 the method of registra-tion of a motor vehicle and by sec. 31 of the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. A perusal of the various provisions of the Act leads to only one conclusion that ownership of a motor vehicle is to be evidenced by the registration as such with the Motor Registering Authority and the registration book, which is supplied is the document of title. I think the Act proceeds on the basis that it is only the ostensible owner who is entered as such in the registration books, who is to be considered to be the owner of the motor vehicle irrespective of the fact that the real ownership may be with somebody else. "