Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Chander Prakash - Appellant
Versus
Ramlali - Respondent
MAC.APP. 119 of 2021
Decided On : 04-03-2021
A registered vehicle owner remains liable for accidents if proper transfer documents have not been executed, regardless of informal ownership claims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Appellant impugns an award regarding compensation for a deceased family member due to an accident involving an unregistered vehicle. Appellant claimed ownership was transferred via a gift deed, but failed to execute necessary transfer documents - The court held that the appellant remained the registered owner, thus liable for insurance - Appellant’s claims about the gift deed were not convincing as ownership transfer documentation was not provided. (Paras 6-11)
(B) Liability - Owner remains liable for damages if vehicle was not duly transferred - Responsibility to operate vehicle safely falls on registered owner regardless of informal transfer claims. (Paras 10-11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision awarding compensation for a fatal accident involving an unregistered motorcycle allegedly driven by a minor. Appellant argued lack of liability due to claimed gifting of the motorcycle to a minor's parent.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's decision to hold the appellant jointly and severally liable was upheld due to lack of proper ownership transfer documentation.
Issues: The court addressed whether the appellant effectively transferred ownership of the motorcycle and sustained liability for the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant's failure to execute required transfer documents maintained his ownership status, hence preserving liability - Being the registered owner, responsibility to ensure insurance coverage for the vehicle remains with the appellant.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant challenges compensation awarded for deceased's family. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appellant failed to execute ownership transfer, retaining liability. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court upholds tribunal's order on liability for compensation. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. appeal dismissed; order to be circulated. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
CM APPL.8730/2021 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
MAC.APP.119/2021 & CM APPL.8731/2021 (stay)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Appellant impugns Award dated 02.11.2020 whereby the Detailed Accident Report has been disposed of and compensation awarded to the family of the deceased.
3. Appellant is the registered owner of the offending motorcycle which was allegedly being driven by respondent no.7, a minor, who is the son of respondent no.8. The vehicle was admittedly not insured.
4. The only issue being raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle had been gifted to respondent No.8 and he allowed his minor son i.e. respondent No.7 to ride the motorcycle.
5. Learned counsel submits that a Gift Deed was duly executed which was also produced in evidence as Ex. R3W1/1. He submits that since the vehicle had been gifted to respondent no.8, appellant is not liable.
6. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that admittedly appellant had not executed any transfer documents or delivered possession along with the execution of the transfer documents i.e. Form 29 and 30, as required by the Motor Vehicle Rules for transfer of ownership.
7. The case set up by the appellant is that a Gift Deed dated 29.03.2016 was executed. Said Gift Deed has been denied by respondent no.8 on the ground that it does not bear his signatures and is forged and fabricated.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the transfer documents i.e. Form 29 and 30 could not be executed as the vehicle was put up as a surety in a case and could not be sold till the time the surety was discharged.
9. This submission further goes on to show that the appellant continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle and had admittedly not executed the requisite documents for transfer of the ownership in favour of respondent No. 8. If the contention of the Appellant is to be accepted that he could not sell the vehicle as it was given as a surety, then how could he even gift the same to Respondent No. 8.
10. Since appellant continued to be the owner of the vehicle, it was his responsibility to insure the vehicle. Since admittedly, there is no insurance policy, the Tribunal has accordingly held the registered owner i.e. the appellant, jointly and severally liable.
11. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the order and the Tribunal holding the appellant jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the family of the deceased.
12. No other ground is urged by learned counsel for the appellant.
13. I find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
14. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
