IMPORTANT POINT
State Government requisitioning a vehicle would be the owner till its release.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, CJI. –

1) This appeal is directed against the impugned final judgment and order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the Gauhati High Court in MAC Appeal No. 30 of 2003 whereby the High Court held that the claimant/appellant herein is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,94,400/ – as compensation for the death of her husband in the motor vehicle accident and the same is payable by Abdul Salam – who was the registered owner of the vehicle at the relevant point of time and not by the State Government.

2) Brief Facts:

a) The appellant/claimant is a widow and mother of four children. On 16.02.1993, at about 10:15 a.m., the claimant’s husband died in a road accident by a speeding bus belonging to Md. Abdul Salam which was not insured and was under requisition of the State Government at the relevant time.

b) The appellant filed MAC Case No. 34 of 1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’), Darrang, Mangaldai for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ – against the registered owner–Md. Abdul Salam. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Udalguri and the State of Assam were also impleded as parties in the said case.

c) The registered owner of the vehicle filed his reply contending that at the relevant time the vehicle was under requisition of the State Government and, hence, the liability to pay compensation is that of the State Government. The SDO, Udalguri, Respondent No. 2 herein, on his behalf and on behalf of the State Government, filed a written statement denying any of its liability and averred that “the vehicle was released on the same date at 10.30”. The SDO further averred that “as per the police report, in the absence of driver, the Handiman of the mini bus drove the bus without any permission from the police and occurred the accident”.

d) By judgment dated 11.07.2002, the Tribunal directed the registered owner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,41,400/ – with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the appellant/claimant and absolved Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein from any liability.

e) Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed MAC Appeal No. 30 of 2003 in the Gauhati High Court not only for higher compensation but also for absolving Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein from any liability.

f) By impugned order dated 04.01.2007, though the High Court enhanced the compensation by Rs. 50,000/ – , it was held that the State Government cannot be held liable for paying compensation to the appellant under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the 1988 Act”) because the liability to pay compensation under the said Act is upon the registered owner, insurer or driver of the vehicle or all or any of them.

g) Aggrieved by such direction, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave.

3) Heard Mr. Jatin Zaveri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Navnit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

Contentions:

4) The appellant has filed the above appeal contending that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was under requisition of the State Government and hence, under the provisions of the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 (for short “the Assam Act”), Respondent No. 1 is liable to pay compensation.

5) On the other hand, it is the stand of Respondent No. 1 that unlike the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short ‘the 1939 Act’), unless a vehicle is registered in the name of a person, he cannot be regarded as the owner of the vehicle under the 1988 Act. Under Section 2(30) of the 1988 Act, a person, in order to be regarded as an owner, must have the vehicle registered in his name and where such a person is a minor, his guardian would be regarded as the owner. The said provision also indicates that in relation to a motor vehicle, a person may be regarded as owner though he may not be the registered owner of the vehicle provided he is in possession of the vehicle on the basis of a hire – purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation. As such, Respondent No. 1, neither b