IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) ‘Owner’ of a vehicle is not limited to categories specified in Section 2(30) of M.V. Act – If context so requires, even a person at whose command or control the vehicle is, could be treated as its owner for the purposes of fixing tortious liability for payment of compensation.
(2) Power of Appellate Court – For exercise of power under Rule 33 of Order 41 CPC overriding consideration is achieving ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur1 dated 15.11.2017, whereby Miscellaneous Appeal (Civil) No.1306 of 2007 filed by the appellant was dismissed and Miscellaneous Appeal (Civil) No.1147/2017 filed by the claimant(s) was allowed thereby enhancing the compensation already awarded to them.

3. At the outset, we would like to put on record that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the impugned order was filed by impleading six respondents. Respondents 1 to 4 (R­1 to R­4) were heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Pranay Kumar Goswami on whose accidental death the claim arose. Respondent no.5 (R­5), namely, Shubhashish Pal, was the person who drove the vehicle at the time of accident; and Respondent no.6 (R­6), namely, M/s Hindustan Motors, was the manufacturer of the vehicle. However, on 23.10.2018, this Court issued notice only to the manufacturer (R­6) (i.e., M/s Hindustan Motors) and the SLP was dismissed qua R­1 to R­5 by observing that the question raised in the matter is about the liability of the dealer (i.e., the appellant). Therefore, in our view, the impugned award has attained finality insofar as the rights of the claimant­respondents are concerned. In consequence, it appears, the Registry has shown M/s Hindustan Motors as the sole respondent though, initially, there were six respondents. Be that as it may to have a clear understanding of the matter, we shall describe the parties as they were described in the SLP at the time of its presentation.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. A claim petition for death compensation was filed before the Tribunal by claimant­respondents (R­1 to R­4) (i.e., legal heirs of the deceased who died in the accident), under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988² [M.V. Act], against driver of the offending vehicle (R­5); M/s. Hindustan Motors Private Limited (R­6) (i.e., manufacturer of the vehicle); and Vaibhav Jain (i.e., Proprietor of M/s Vaibhav Motors ­ the dealer of R­6) (the appellant herein). The deceased was R­6’s Territory Manager whereas the driver of the vehicle was R­6’s Service Engineer. Thus, the driver and the deceased were employees of R­6 (i.e., M/s Hindustan Motors). The accident took place when the vehicle was taken out for a test drive from the dealership of the appellant.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, five issues were framed by the Tribunal. Out of those five, the issue relevant for the purposes of this appeal is:

Whether prior to the accident M/s. Hindustan Motors had sold the offending vehicle to M/s. Vaibhav Motors (i.e., the dealer)? If not, whether the dealer can be held liable for the compensation, jointly and severally, with M/s. Hindustan Motors?

6. As regards issue of ownership of the vehicle, the Tribunal held that on the day of accident, M/s. Hindustan Motors was the owner of the vehicle though Vaibhav Motors was in possession of the vehicle as its dealer.

Based on that, the Tribunal held M/s. Hindustan Motors as well as M/s. Vaibhav Motors (the appellant) jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.

7. Aggrieved by quantum of the compensation awarded, the claimants (R­1 to R­4) preferred Miscellaneous Appeal (Civil) No.1147/2017 before the High Court; whereas vide Miscellaneous Appeal (Civil) No.1306/2007, the dealer (i.e., the appellant herein) questioned the award to the extent it made him jointly and severally liable for payment of the compensation.

8. Both the aforesaid appeals were heard simultaneously and disposed of by the impugned order. The claimants’ appeal was allowed, and the compensation was enhanced. However, the appellant’s appeal was dismissed.

9. We have heard Shri Arup Banerjee for the appellant and Ms. Purti Gupta for M/s Hindustan Motors; and have also perused the materials on record.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant

10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted:

(i) On the date of accident, the owner of the offending vehi