Back
2011 Supreme(Chh) 216
2011 (4) C.G.L.J. 572 (DB)
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
I.M. Quddusi & G. Minhajuddin, JJ.
NEPAL CHAND AGRAWAL - Appellant
Vs.
SMT. JALBATI BAI & OTHERS - Respondents
M.A. (C) No. 1233 of 2007,
Decided on : 18-7-2011.
Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate, for the Appellant.
None for the Respondents, despite service of notice.
The intentional failure of the transferee to fulfill the requirements of reporting the transfer of ownership and getting the name entered in the Certificate of Registration relieved the appellant from liability and fastened the compensation exclusively upon the transferee.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability - Section 173 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 166, Section 50(1)(b), Rule 55(2), Rule 81 - The court discussed the liability to pay compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and interpreted the provisions of Section 50(1)(b) and Rule 55(2) to determine the responsibility of the transferee in reporting the transfer of ownership and getting the name entered in the Certificate of Registration. The court's decision was influenced by the intentional failure of the transferee to fulfill these requirements, relieving the appellant from liability and fastening the compensation exclusively upon the transferee.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal against the award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, where the liability to pay compensation for a fatal accident was fastened upon the appellant, an old owner of the vehicle, and the transferee. The deceased was a government employee and the claimants, as legal heirs, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transferee, who had not fulfilled the requirements of reporting the transfer of ownership and getting the name entered in the Certificate of Registration, should be exclusively liable to pay the compensation, relieving the appellant from the liability.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant or the transferee was responsible to pay compensation for the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 50(1)(b) and Rule 55(2) to determine the responsibility of the transferee in reporting the transfer of ownership and getting the name entered in the Certificate of Registration, and held that the intentional failure of the transferee to fulfill these requirements relieved the appellant from liability.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the award that fastened the liability upon the appellant and the transferee jointly, and relieved the appellant from the liability to pay compensation, fastening the liability exclusively upon the transferee.
As per Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi, J. :-
1. List is being revised. No one appears for the respondents when the matter was called out twice. Therefore, we proceed to decide the case exparte.
2; This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been ,filed against the award of II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (in short "the Tribunal"), dated 6.9.2007 passed in Claim Case No. 65/06, insofar as the Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay compensation to the claimants upon the appellant, who is an old owner of the vehicle in question, which was sold on 16.8.2005 to another person i.e. respondent No.8 Mohd. Shakeel.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.2.2006 deceased Shyamdas Manikpuri was going on bicycle from his house at Sakri to Irrigation Department, Vyapar Vihar for his duties. He was riding the bicycle slowly by the side of the road. As soon as he reached near Sai Mangalam, respondent No.8 by driving motorcycle bearing registration No. MP 26A-B/8963 on the wrong side of the road in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed Shyamdas Manikpuri, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries over his head, hands and chest and ultimately, died in hospital during treatment. The matter was reported to Police Station : Tarbahar, whereupon offence was registered against respondent No.8 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against him in the Court. The deceased was a government Nepal Chand Agrawal Vs. Smt. Jalbati Bai (Quddusi, J.) employee in the Irrigation Department and getting a salary of Rs.6,500/- per month. In addition to this, he was also getting other allowances, totaling Rs.25,000/- per annum. At the time of accident, he was 54 years and he used to contribute the entire income to his family. Therefore, the claimants being legal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") claiming a total compensation of Rs.18,83,000/- for the death of Shyamdas Manikpuri.
4. However, learned Tribunal after hearing counsel for the parties, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by them, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.4, 15,712/- to the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its payment is made, fastening the liability upon the appellant and respondent No.8 jointly.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the LCR as also the impugned award.
6. The question for our consideration is - whether the appellant is responsible to pay compensation or it is respondent No.8 to whom the vehicle was sold and under whose possession the vehicle was found and who had not got his name entered in the Certificate of Registration (Re) as owner from the date of purchase?
7. The documents seized by the police from the custody of respondent No.8 were RC of two-wheeler sold to respondent No.8 by the appellant and an affidavit dated 16.8.2005, which is, in fact, a sale letter in the form of affidavit, in which it has been, inter alia, mentioned that duly signed sale letter in Form No. 29/30 and other documents have been handed over to the buyer i.e.respondent No.8 Mohammad Shakeel by the appellant, and if respondent No.8 gets the said vehicle transferred in his name, the appellant has no objection.
8. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to consider the provisions of Section 50(1)(b) of the Act, which are as under :
"50. Transfer of ownership. - (1) Whether the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,
(a) xxxx xxx x xxxx xxxx
(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy
