Both the registered owner and the driver of a vehicle may be jointly liable for compensation in negligence claims, despite changes in ownership prior to an accident.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

C.M.Appl.No.1/2019 & MACA No.2127/2019

This is an application for condonation of delay of 3045 days in filing the appeal. In the application it is alleged that due to financial stringencies the applicants/claim petitioners were unable to file the appeal.

2. The application is opposed by the learned counsel for the second respondent/driver.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The delay of 3045 days, that is, more than 8 years has not been explained in the application. Therefore, I do not find any reasons for condonation of this long delay in filing the appeal.

In the result, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently the appeal also stands dismissed.

MACA No.94/2020

This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the second respondent/driver in O.P.(MV) No.1077/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 30/06/2010. The respondents herein are the claim petitioners and the first respondent/owner respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. The claim petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased. According to the claim petitioners on 13/06/2006 at about 08:30 p.m., while the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-2 Q-8595 through Kollam-Thiruvananthapuram NH 47 road and when he reached at Vazhappally, car bearing registration No.KL 2 K 3942 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed. Hence, the petition claiming an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads.

3. The second respondent/driver remained ex parte.

4. The first respondent, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, filed written statement contending that she had sold the vehicle to the second respondent as per sale agreement dated 10/08/2004 and that as on the date of the accident, the 2^nd respondent was the actual owner and possessor of the vehicle. Hence the 1^st respondent has no liability. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident. It was found that there was no insurance policy for the vehicle and that the 2^nd respondent was the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle and hence awarded an amount of Rs.3,42,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. The 2^nd respondent has been made liable to pay the amount. Aggrieved by the award, the second respondent/driver has come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/driver of the offending car that going by the dictum in Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar , AIR 2018 SC 983 , it was the first respondent, who was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and hence she is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal committed an error by directing the second respondent/driver to pay the compensation and hence interference into the impugned award is called for.

10. The evidenc