Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GOA, DAMAN AND DIU
K.M. MISHRA, J.
Mukund Dattaram Shetye – Appellant
Versus
Slaigappan Alagappan and Ors. – Respondents
First Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1978
Decided On : 25-05-1981
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.V. Kudchankar
For the Respondents: A. Viegas and H.R. Bharne, Advs.
The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for compensation in the event of an accident caused by the negligent driving of an unauthorized driver, as the driver is presumed to have lawful authority unless the owner can prove otherwise. Additionally, the non-registration of the ownership transfer does not absolve the owner from liability.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 22 - LIABILITY OF OWNER - NON-REGISTERED OWNER - LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION - TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - REGISTRATION - PRESUMPTION OF LAWFUL AUTHORITY.
Fact of the Case:
A fatal accident occurred involving an autorickshaw driven by Respondent No. 2, resulting in the death of Eppa Swami, the son of the claimant, Respondent No. 1. The owner of the autorickshaw, the Appellant, contested liability, claiming the driver was unauthorized and the vehicle was taken without his knowledge or consent. The insurance company, Respondent No. 3, denied liability due to the driver's lack of a valid driving license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 2, who was not trained in driving the autorickshaw. The court also held that the Appellant, as the owner, was liable for compensation since the driver was presumed to have lawful authority to drive the vehicle. The court further determined that the non-registration of the ownership transfer did not absolve the Appellant from liability.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 2. 2. Whether the Appellant, as the owner of the autorickshaw, was liable for compensation despite the driver's lack of authorization. 3. Whether the non-registration of the ownership transfer affected the Appellant's liability.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the evidence presented, including the testimony of witnesses and the absence of evidence to support the driver's claim of brake failure, to conclude that the accident was caused by the driver's negligence. 2. The court applied the principle that a person found driving a vehicle is presumed to have lawful authority from the owner, placing the onus on the owner to prove otherwise. Since the Appellant failed to provide satisfactory evidence, the court held him liable for compensation. 3. The court referred to the provisions of Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and relevant case law to establish that the contractual transfer of ownership precedes the application for transfer of registration. Therefore, the non-registration of the ownership transfer did not negate the Appellant's liability.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to award compensation to the claimant. The court found no merit in the Appellant's arguments and concluded that the Tribunal had correctly determined the liability of the owner and the quantum of compensation.
JUDGMENT :
K.M. Mishra, J.
1. This First Civil Appeal is filed against the decision dated 30.8.1978 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panaji, awarding Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till actual payment. The insurance company, Respondent No. 3, has been exonerated. The Appellant is the owner of a three wheeler (autorickshaw) that was involved in the accident while being driven by the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 1 is the claimant.
2. It appears that on 24th February, 1974, Eppa Swami, aged 23 years, the deceased son of the claimant, and A.W. 7, were proceeding from Chicalim to Vasco-da-Gama on the public road. They were walking on the left side of the road. Near Pednekar's garage at Vasco-da-Gama, an autorickshaw came from behind and knocked both of them. Both fell down unconscious. Both were taken to Chicalim Hospital where A.W. 7 regained his consciousness at about 12 O'clock. Eppa Swami was sent to Margao Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries, next day. The accident, it was alleged, took place as the Respondent No. 1 was driving the rickshaw No. MRS 379 in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs. 250/- at the time of his death. On the aforesaid allegation the claimant claimed Rs. 60,000/- as compensation.
3. The claim was contested by the three Respondents by filing three separate written statements. The case of Respondent No. 2 (the driver) was that the accident was the result of failure of the brake of the rickshaw that he drove on the date of the accident. According to him he was working as a winch man on the barge under the Dock Labour Board. He was not used to driving an autorickshaw. He drove it as the son of the owner Laxmikant Mukund Shetye had requested him to drive. He admitted that the deceased and his companion were walking on the left side of the road. One bus came from the opposite direction. He blew the horn, but the deceased and his companion did not move. He applied the brake, but the same failed, with the result that the autorickshaw dashed both of them. Since the accident was solely due to mechanical defect he was not responsible for the payment of compensation.
4. The written statement filed by the insurance company was to the effect that since the vehicle was driven by a person other than the driver who was not holding a driving licence to drive the said vehicle, there was no liability on their part to pay the compensation in terms of the policy and under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further contended on their behalf that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the Respondent No. 1.
5. The case of the Petitioner who was the Respondent No. 2, in the claim petition, was that he was not liable to pay any compensation, because the vehicle was removed by Respondent No. 1 without his knowledge and consent. His further case was that Respondent No. 1 took the vehicle by opening the lock with some local device and without being authorized to do so by him.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as 7 issues. The claim has been allowed on the basis of the finding that the collision was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the Respondent No. 1. The Claims Tribunal has further recorded a finding that the vehicle was taken with the knowledge and consent of its owner, that is, the Appellant herein. Instead of allowing the full claim, the Tribunal has passed an award for Rs, 10,000/- with interest as stated above.
7. (sic) the learned Claims Tribunal without disclosing the evidence has been swayed away by the decision in the criminal case.
It is not absolutely correct that the learned Claims Tribunal has not discussed the evidence, but has merely been influenced by the result of the criminal case. On his own showing the driver was not used to dri
