SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
PRAKASH CHAND DAGA – Appellant
VERSUS
SAVETA SHARMA & ORS. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11369 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(Civil)No.27296 of 2018)
Decided On : 14-12-2018
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Accident tribunal required to amount of compensation payable by Insurance Company, owner or driver. (Para 6)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 2(30) – Owner – Notwithstanding transfer of the vehicle, so long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person. (Para 9)
(2018) 3 SCC 1; (2011)2 SCC 240 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant, original owner of a Santro Car sold said vehicle to Ms. Saveta Sharma, first respondent on 11.09.2009. After receiving due consideration, the possession was transferred to said first respondent. An accident occurred on 09.10.2009 in which one Rakesh Kumar, second respondent, received injuries. In a claim lodged by second respondent, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.12.47 lakhs.
Since the liability was fastened on the driver and first respondent, the aforesaid decision was challenged by them in the High Court. The High Court found that despite the sale of the vehicle on 11.09.2009, no transfer of ownership was effected and as such the appellant continued to be the owner. Therefore although the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation, it was authorized to recover the same form the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court was absolutely right in allowing the appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.7010/2011.
2. The appellant, original owner of a Santro Car sold said vehicle to Ms. Saveta Sharma, first respondent on 11.09.2009. According to the appellant, after receiving due consideration, the possession was transferred to said first respondent. An accident occurred on 09.10.2009 in which one Rakesh Kumar, second respondent, received injuries. In a claim lodged by second respondent, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.12.47 lakhs and directed as under:
“32. In view of my findings on the various issues above, the claim petition is allowed with costs and claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs.12,47,739/- (Rs. Twelve lacs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Nine only), Rs.11,58,489/- compensation for medical expenses etc. + Rs.60,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings + Rs.18,000/- as compensation for loss of income + Rs.11,250/- as compensation for temporary disability from respondent No.2 and 3 alone. Keeping in view prevalent interest rates, the claimant shall also be entitled to interest on the above awarded amount at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till final realisation. The liability of the respondent No.2 and 3 to pay the compensation shall be joint as well as several. Memo of costs be prepared and file be consigned to records.”
3. Since the liability was fastened on the driver and first respondent, the aforesaid decision was challenged by them in the High Court by filing FAO No.7010/2011. The High Court found that despite the sale of the vehicle on 11.09.2009, no transfer of ownership, in accordance with Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (‘the Act’ for short) was effected and as such the appellant continued to be the owner in terms of definition as incorporated in Section 2(30) of the Act. Relying on the decision of this Court in Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others, (2018) 3 SCC 1 the High Court concluded as under.
“Applying the ratio of the above said judgment to the facts of the present case, the award stands modified to the above extent that the Insurance Company is liable to make the compensation to the claimant and the Insurance Company will have the recovery rights to recover the same from the registered owner i.e. respondent No.1 of the offending vehicle. Remaining conditions of disbursal of amount shall remain unaltered.”
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the accident had occurred within thirty days of the transfer when the statutory period as prescribed under Section 50(1)(b) of the Act had not expired and as such the liability could not be fastened on the present appellant. Though served, the transferee, namely, first respondent has chosen not to appear in the matter. We have gone through the record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the Insurance Company.
5. It is true that in terms of Section 50 of the Act, the transfer of a vehicle ought to be registered within 30 days of the sale. Section 50(1) of the Act obliges the transferor to report the fact of transfer within 14 days of the transfer. In case the vehicle is sold outside State, the period within which the transfer ought to be reported gets extended. On the other hand, the transferee is also obliged to report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transferee has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept. Section 50 thus prescribes timelines within which the transferor and the transferee are required to report the factum of transfer. As per Sub-Section 3 of said Section 50, if there be failure to report the fact of transfer, fine could be imposed and an action under Section 177 could thereafter be taken if there is failure to pay the amount of fine. These tim
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.