Back
High Court Of Delhi
VIMAL RAI - Appellant
Versus
GURCHARAN SINGH - Respondent
First Appeal Order 201-D of 1965
Decided On : 03/16/1967
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 96(2) - INSURANCE POLICY - LAPSE - SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLE - OWNERSHIP TRANSFER - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - VICARIOUS LIABILITY - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
An accident occurred on 16th July, 1963, resulting in the death of Balwant Rai, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants Nos. 2 and 3. The accident was caused by a motor cycle bearing registration No. DLO 2706, Jawa make, 1962 model. At the time of the accident, the motor cycle was being driven by Ram Lal respondent No. 4. The appellants filed a petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Delhi, claiming Rs. 1,50,000. 00 as compensation.
Finding of the Court:
1. The sale of the motor cycle on 1st July, 1963, as alleged by respondents Nos. 1 to 3, was not proved. 2. Gurcharan Singh, respondent No. 1, continued to be the owner of the motor cycle on the date of the accident. 3. The insurance policy continued to be in force on the date of the accident. 4. The act of driving the motor cycle by respondent No. 4 was not in excess of authority. 5. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was appropriate.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a sale of the motor cycle by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 on 1st July, 1963. 2. Whether the motor cycle was owned by respondent No. 1 or 2 on the date of accident. 3. Whether the policy of insurance in regard to the vehicle in question was in force in the name of respondent No. 1. 4. Whether the petition discloses any cause of action against respondent No. 5 and its effect. 5. Whether the petitioners are entitled to damages and from whom. 6. Whether the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was entitled to use it and the Insurance Co. was not liable on the grounds taken in para 4 of the preliminary objections of respondent No. 3. 7. Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased. 8. Relief.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The sale of a motor vehicle will not be governed by the ordinary law relating to sales of movable property. 2. Ownership of a motor vehicle is to be evidenced by the registration as such with the Motor Registering Authority and the registration book which is supplied is the document of title. 3. It is not open to the Insurance Company to raise the plea of lapse of policy by reason of an alleged sale in an action by the third party or its legal representatives. 4. The act of driving the motor cycle by respondent No. 4 was not in excess of authority as it was necessary to drive the vehicle to repair the starting trouble.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Order of the Claims Tribunal set aside. Award of Rs. 31,500. 00 granted in favour of the appellants against respondents Nos. 1, 3, and 4 with costs throughout. Rest of the claim in appeal dismissed.
( 1 ) THERE was an accident on 16th July, 1963 as a result of which, Balwant Rai, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants Nos. 2 and 3 died on the 17th July, 1963. The accident was caused by a motor cycle bearing registration No. DLO 2706, Jawa make, 1962 model. At the time of the accident the motor cycle was being driven by Ram Lal respondent No. 4. The appellants filed a petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Delhi, claiming Rs. 1,50,000. 00 as compensation.
( 2 ) AT the time of the accident, the motor cycle in question stood registered in the relevant records of the Motor Licencing Authority, Delhi, in the name of Gurcharan Singh, respondent No. 1. Gurcharan Singh had taken out an insurance policy covering third parly risks from Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi, respondent No. 3. The insurance policy had been issued on or about the 15th October, 1962 and was effective for one year. In the application for compensation, the appellants had impleaded one M. G. Krishna Rao, as respondent No. 2 and they had shown Gurcharan Singh and Rao, as owners of the Motor cycle. Ram Lal respondent No. 4 was stated to be a mechanic in the workshop of Gulzari Lal who was made respondent No. 5.
( 3 ) THE age of the deceased was stated to be 41 years and 7 months at the time of his death and it was alleged that he was employed in the Ministry of Home Affairs and had a monthly income of Rs. 300. 00. Along with the petition, a statement of claim was filed. Rs. 61,200. 00 were claimed as the salary, which the deceased would have earned during the remaining 17 years of his service ; Rs. 30,000. 00 were claimed on account of loss of the chances of promotion; Rs. 32,000. 00 were claimed as loss of pension for 18 years at the rate of Rs. 1,800. 00 per year ; Rs. 18,000. 00 were claimed as loss of income, which could have been supplemented after retirement by the own efforts of the deceased and Rs. 8,400. 00 were claimed for the mental agony suffered by the appellants. The claim as to loss of pension and the claim as to the loss of supplementary income after retirement were based on the assumption that the deceased would have lived upto the age of 75 years.
( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a written statement denying knowledge of any of the facts alleged in the petition and further pleaded that he was not liable to pay any compensation as he was neither the owner nor the driver of the motor cycle on the alleged day of occurrence. Respondent No. 2 also denied the allegation in the petition. He, however, admitted that he was the owner of the motor cycle on the date of the occurrence, but he pleaded that he had never engaged Ram Lal (respondent No. 4) to drive the vehicle. His case was that he had engaged the service of respondent No. 5 for the repair of the motor cycle and he further stated that "if the respondent No. 5 negligently entrusted the vehicle to one of his own employees which the respondent No. 2 believes that the respondent No. 4 was the employee of respondent No. 5, the compensation is payable either by the respondent No. 4 or by respondent No. 5. " His further case was that the deceased was- guilty of contributory negligence. At this stage, I may mention that the date on which respondent No. 1 is alleged to have sold the vehicle to respondent No. 2 was not mentioned either in the written statement of respondent No. 1 or in the written statement of respondent No. 2.
( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 also filed a written statement and the only plea which is material for the purposes of this appeal which was raised by respondent No. 3 was that respondent No. 1 had transferred the ownership of the motor cycle to respondent No. 2 with effect from 1st July, 1963 and therefore, the policy had ceased to be in force. It is to be noticed that respondent No. 3 in their written statement have not used the word "sale" but have used the words "transferre
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
