Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 3268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
G.P. MITTAL, J.
INDIA LEASE DEVELOPMENT LTD. - Appellant
Vs.
SAVITA AND OTHERS - Respondents
MAC. APP. No. 130 of 2011 and CM. Appl. No. 17923 of 2011
Decided On : 05-03-2012
For the Appellant : G.P. Thareja.
For the Respondents:Nitin Yadav and Mr. Hameed Sheikh, Advocates.
The registered owner of a vehicle under an agreement of lease or hypothecation is liable for accidents, even after the agreement has ended, if no steps are taken to transfer the vehicle's ownership.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Registered Owner - Section 2(30), Section 168, Section 50 - The court held that the registered owner of a vehicle under an agreement of lease or hypothecation is liable for accidents, even after the agreement has ended, if no steps are taken to transfer the vehicle's ownership. The court referred to relevant case law to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant challenges a judgment awarding compensation for a fatal accident involving a vehicle leased by the Appellant. The Appellant argued that the deceased's actions contributed to the accident, there was a clerical mistake in the computation of loss of dependency, and a necessary party was not joined.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Appellant, as the registered owner of the leased vehicle, was liable for the accident despite the lease agreement ending. The court also rejected the argument that the deceased's actions contributed to the accident and adjusted the compensation amount due to a clerical mistake.
Issues: Liability of the registered owner under an agreement of lease, contribution of the deceased to the accident, clerical mistake in computation of loss of dependency, and non-joinder of a necessary party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the registered owner of a vehicle under an agreement of lease or hypothecation is liable for accidents, even after the agreement has ended, if no steps are taken to transfer the vehicle's ownership. The court also found that the deceased's actions did not contribute to the accident and adjusted the compensation amount due to a clerical mistake.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, reduced the compensation amount, and held the Appellant and the Seventh Respondent jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The excess amount was to be refunded to the Appellant, and the Appellant was given liberty to take appropriate proceedings against the Seventh Respondent.
G.P. Mittal, J.
The Appellant India Lease Development Ltd. impugns a judgment dated 04.01.2011 whereby a compensation of Rs. 7,41,000/- was awarded in favour of Respondents No. 1 to 5.
2. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant are :
(i) The Appellant was the financier and lessor of Vehicle No. DL-2CB-2575 leased to the Seventh Respondent (Anil Kumar). According to Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act where a vehicle is subject to Hire Purchase Agreement or an Agreement of Lease, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is liable as owner thereof and not the Financier.
(ii) The deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a two-wheeler without wearing any helmet. Therefore, the deceased has contributed to the accident and his consequent death.
(iii) There was clerical mistake in the computation of loss of dependency as the Claims Tribunal, on account of clerical mistake, took the same as Rs. 2,719/- and rounded it off to Rs. 2,750/- instead of Rs. 2,179/- to calculate the total loss of dependency.
(iv) The Appellant moved an application to implead Vijay Kumar as he had obtained the vehicle on superdari and was in actual possession of the vehicle. He was liable being the rightful owner of the offending vehicle; the Claim Petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
3. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim, make an award determining just compensation and specifying the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid. The Claims Tribunal is under an obligation to specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or the driver of the vehicle. The term "owner" is defined u/s 2(30) of the Act, which is extracted hereunder :
(30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;
4. A bare reading of the provision shows that in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation etc., the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement would deem to be the owner of the vehicle. The Appellant proved on record an Agreement of Lease Ex.R4W1/2, through its authorized representative Yogesh Kumar, which was valid for a period of two years. Yogesh Kumar testified that the Seventh Respondent (Anil Kumar) defaulted in payment of installments and ultimately made payment of all outstanding lease charges and approached the Appellant for transfer of the vehicle in the records of the registering authority in his name. He deposed that the Appellant issued a sale letter dated 16.08.1995, also signed Form 29 and 30 and recorded the transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle as per the Motor Vehicles Act. He deposed that the Seventh Respondent (Anil Kumar) assured the Appellant that he would take necessary steps for effecting transfer of the vehicle in the records of the registering authority. Thus, it is evident that the lease agreement was no longer subsisting between the Appellant and the Seventh Respondent. Admittedly, the vehicle stood registered in Appellant's name. Even if it is assumed that the Appellant executed documents for transfer of the vehicle, yet no information was sent to the registering authority within a period of 14 days as provided u/s 50 of the Act. Section 50(i) is extracted hereunder:
50. Transfer of ownership-(1) ...........
(a).........
(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Centr
