Back
High Court Of Calcutta
A. N. RAY, JYOTESH BANERJEE
RAMPUKAR SHOW - Appellant
Versus
BIDUR BANERJEE - Respondent
F. M. A. 74 Of 2003
Decided On : 12/08/2003
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1939 - SECTION 31 - TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - LIABILITY OF OWNER - TRANSFEROR'S OBLIGATION TO REPORT TRANSFER - TRANSFEREE'S OBLIGATION TO REGISTER VEHICLE - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS - EFFECT ON OWNERSHIP - SALE OF GOODS ACT - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
An accident occurred involving a truck driven negligently, resulting in the death of the victim. The petitioners, the deceased's husband and minor children, filed an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurance company denied liability as the vehicle was not insured with them at the time of the accident. The alleged owners, Cadila Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd. and Rampukar Show, disputed their liability, claiming that the vehicle had been transferred to Show in 1988 and that the company had taken all necessary steps to transfer ownership.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the truck driver. The insurance company was not liable as the vehicle was not insured with them at the time of the accident. The court held that the transfer of ownership of the vehicle from Cadila Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd. to Rampukar Show was valid and that Show was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Therefore, Show was liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation for the accident. 2. Whether Cadila Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd. or Rampukar Show was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and therefore liable to pay compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation because the vehicle was not insured with them at the time of the accident. 2. The court held that Rampukar Show was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and therefore liable to pay compensation. The court relied on the following legal principles: - The transfer of ownership of a vehicle is governed by the Sale of Goods Act. - The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, regarding the transfer of ownership of a vehicle are for the regulation of the use of motor vehicles in public places and to impose penalties for non-compliance. - Failure to comply with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, regarding the transfer of ownership of a vehicle does not make the transfer invalid. - The endorsement of transfer in the record of the registering authority is not a condition precedent to the transfer taking effect.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by Rampukar Show. The court held that the Tribunal had rightly directed Show, as the owner of the offending vehicle, to pay the compensation awarded to the petitioners.
( 1 ) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18. 5. 2002 passed by the Judge, M. A. C. T. , 2nd Court, Bankura in a proceeding under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act registered as Motor accident Claim Case No. 26/99 / 157/97
( 2 ) THE claimant/petitioners Bidur Banerjee and two of his minor children made the application on 20. 11. 97 praying for compensation to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs on the allegation that on 9. 11. 96 at about 1 p. m. Hansi Chatterjee (Banerjee), the deceased, the wife of the petitioner Bidur and mother of the other petitioners was proceeding on foot towards Bishnupur through radhanagar. From Bishnupur side suddenly a truck No. WBI-7191 came at an excessive speed and the victim was run over by such vehicle causing severe injuries on her vital parts of the body. After the accident, the victim was referred to Bishunupur Sub-Divisional Hospital where she succumbed to her injuries at about 2 p. m. on the same day. The petitioners have filed the application on the specific allegation that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, on a further allegation that the victim at the time of her death was aged about 46 years and she was Health Supervisor attached to radhanagar Primary Health Centre. Due to the unfortunate death of the victim the two minor petitioners who were aged 9 years and 6 years respectively at the time of such accident lost their mother at their tender age. The petitioners also claimed the compensation for mental agony, financial loss etc.
( 3 ) IN this proceeding there were 3 O. Ps including the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) in their written objection clearly stated that they were not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners because the offending vehicle was not insured with the O. P. /insurance Company on the date of accident that is to say on 9. 11. 96 and such offending vehicle was insured upto 7. 11. 96. Amongst two alleged owners, O. P. No. 2, the Managing director of M/s. Cadila Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd. alleged that the Company was not liable to give any compensation because the offending vehicle had already been sold to Rampukar Show on 12. 12. 88 and the authority concerned was duly intimated about such transfer. The O. P. /company, further disclosed in the written objection that the name of the Company had already been changed to M/s. Glitter Leasing and Finance Company (P) Ltd. O. P. Rampukar Show in his written objection stated that he was not a registered owner of the said vehicle on the date of accident that is to say on 9. 11. 96 but the said Cadila leasing and Finance Company continued as the registered owner of the vehicle and also took the plea that the accident caused due to negligence on the part of the victim Hansi Banerjee.
( 4 ) IN the impugned judgement, the learned Tribunal found that the offending vehicle was insured under the Oriental Insurance Company for the period from 20. 11. 96 to 19. 11. 97 and the offending vehicle was transferred on 20. 12. 88 by o. P. /cadila Leasing Finance Co. Ltd. and O. P. Rampukar Show took possession of the said vehicle from the said Company and that the Company reported the matter to the authority concerned for change of the name of the ownership in favour of Rampukar in the year, 1988 and considering the circumstances, the learned Tribunal further found that there was no evidence that the offending vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company on 9. 11. 96 for which such Insurance Company had no liability to pay any compensation for the accident and O. P/rampukar Show as the owner should pay the compensation. On these findings, the learned Tribunal Judge assessed the total compensation at Rs. 3,60,000/- and directed the O. P. No. 1, the present appellant to pay the amount.
( 5 ) AS the matter stands now, there is no dispute regarding the finding that the accident complained of took place d
AI
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
