Back
High Court of Karnataka
K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA
H.D. Chandrappa & Others
Versus
Smt. Hanumakka & Others
M.F.A. No.3202 of 2009 (MV) A/W M.F.A.CROB.No.168 of 2009
Decided on : 02-07-2012
Where the vehicle is not covered by policy of insurance and in claim petition arising out of an accident involving such vehicle, if the person named as registered owner of vehicle in the concerned register of the Registering Authority contends that he ceased to be the owner of the vehicle on account of its sale, it is for him to show and establish that he ceased to be the owner, notwithstanding the fact that the registration certificate is not changed into the name of the transferee, and if he succeeds in doing so, then he will not be liable to answer the claim. If he fails to do so, he would be liable to answer the claim of third parties.
Thus, where the vehicle was sold in favour of respondent but the registration certificate was not changed and it continued to remain in name of seller even on date of accident but it was shown that respondent as transferee of the vehicle was in possession and control of the same as on the date of accident and Respondent did not dispute the said fact. Therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the respondent to contend that he is not liable to answer the claim of the third parties arising § out of the use of the motor vehicle nor it lies in his mouth to contend that since seller continues to be the registered owner, she should be made liable to answer the claim of the claimants in this case.
No doubt, the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of M.V. Act has not been complied with Section 50 imposes duty both on transferor and transferee of the motor vehicles to inform the registering authority about the transfer and seek change of the registration. Non-compliance of those requirements entails them with penal action. But non-compliance of mandate of S. 50 does not invalidates the sale of the vehicle. In the instant case transferee himself was guilty of not complying with the duty cast upon him under S. 50 of the Act. He had benefit and use of the vehicle for over 7 years prior to the accident. He kept quiet without getting his name entered in the registration certificate concerning the vehicle in question though the transferor had handed over all necessary documents and forms duly signed. He had utilised the vehicle for over 7 years. On the top of it, he had allowed the vehicle to run on the public road without taking a policy of insurance and thereby he has committed violation of the provisions of S. 146 of the Act. Therefore, transferee of vehicle who is guilty of all these acts cannot be allowed to contend that he is not liable to answer the claim of the claimants. AIR 1993 Kar 103, Rel. on.
1. This appeal is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 26.12.2008 passed by the Addl. M.A.C.T. and Presiding Officer, FTC-1, Davangere, in M.V.C.No.674/2005.
2. The appellant was arrayed as respondent No.3 before the trial court. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were the claimants while respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein had been arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be referred during the course of this judgment according to their ranking before the tribunal.
4. The claimants-petitioners filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the death of their son Shivarudrappa in the motor vehicle accident that occurred at about 9 a.m., on 13.07.2003. The case of the claimants was that the deceased Shivarudrappa was employed in the wine shop run by respondent No.3 and on the fateful day, he was proceeding in the lorry bearing registration No.KA-17/5992 which was driven by respondent No.1 and on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by respondent No.1, the vehicle met with an accident, as a result, the said Shivarudrappa sustained grievous injuries to which, he succumbed. Initially, the claim petition was filed against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that they are the driver and owner respectively of the offending lorry. Subsequently, respondent No.3 was impleaded. Respondent No.3 is none other than the father of respondent No.1.
5. The 2nd respondent filed statement of objections contending interalia that she was the earlier registered owner of the vehicle in question and about 7 years prior to the date of accident, she sold the vehicle to Chandrappa-respondent No.3, father of the 1st respondent and since 7 years, the vehicle has been in possession and control of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as such, she was not the owner of the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident and therefore, she is not liable to answer the claim of the claimants. She denied other averments made in the petition. Respondent No.1 in his statement of objections merely denied the petition averments. After respondent No.3 came to be impleaded, he filed a memo adopting the statement of objections filed by respondent No.1. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the petitioners prove that D.R. Nagendrappa the son of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 met with road traffic accident on 13.07.2003 at about 9 p.m., on Ayanoor Hanagere Katte public road near Sirigere village while travelling in Trax No.KA-17-5992 due to the rash and negligent driving of the same by its driver and he succumbed to the injuries suffered?
(ii) Whether the petitioners prove that they are the only legal heirs of deceased Shivarudrappa?
(iii) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that she was not the owner of the said Trax bearing registration No.KA-17/5992 as on the date of the accident?
(iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?
(v) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?
(vi) What order or award?
6. During the enquiry, the 2nd claimant-father of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and the claimants examined one more witness as PW-2. The claimants placed reliance on the documentary evidence marked as Exs.P1 to P9. Respondent No.1 examined himself as RW-1 and respondent No.2 examined herself as RW-2. She relied on the documentary evidence marked as Ex.R1. The tribunal on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, by the judgment under appeal, answered issued No.1 in the ‘affirmative’ in favour of the claimants holding that the claimants have proved the accident alleged involving the lorry in question and that the said accident occurred on account of the negligence of the respondent No.1 as the driver of the vehicle. The tribunal also held that the deceased Shivaru
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
