1. Where does the liability to pay compensation under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, lie when the offending vehicle has changed hands without the change in ownership, getting reflected in the records maintained by the Regional Transport Officers, is the question that looks for an answer in the present appeal.

2. The facts are brief and simple.

Shri Bashir Ahmad Zargar father of respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 and husband of respondent No. 2 (now deleted from array of respondents) on 26th May 2000, met a fatal accident at Main Bazar Awantipora when he was hit by an Auto Rikshaw bearing registration No. JK-13-0776 driven rashly and negligently by Gulzar Ahmad Dar Son of Gani Dar Resident of Dangerpora Pandgampora Tehsil and district Pulwama. The victim sustained multiple serious injuries, and was rushed to the SKIMS Soura, where he breathed his last. The respondents 1 to 4, on 14.8.2000 brought a claim petition under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, against the driver of the offending vehicle, its registered owner as also one Abdul Ahad Bhat Son of Mohamad Kamal Bhat resident Padgampora/respondent No.6 to whom the registered owner was claimed to have sold the offending vehicle some time before the accident. The claim petition was allowed on 26.2.2007 and an amount of Rs. 5.75 lacs determined as just compensation, to be paid by the registered owner and the prospective owner in equal proportion with simple interests at the rate of 6% from the date of institution of petition till realization of compensation amount. The interim award of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the registered owner was directed to be adjusted towards the share of compensation with which the registered owner was burdened.

3. The award is assailed through medium of instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the registered owner, on the grounds that the award is based on mis-appreciation of evidence, in as much as the Learned Tribunal made the award oblivious to the admission of the respondent No.6 that the appellant had sold to him the offending vehicle much before the accident. It is insisted that there was no reason to make registered owner liable to pay compensation if any, payable to the claimants. It is pleaded that the appellant having sold the offending vehicle before the accident in question, the appellant had no supervision and control over the driver of the offending vehicle and thus could not be held vicariously responsible for the acts of the driver. It is further pleaded that there was no evidence before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of accident and the Tribunal thus was not justified in burdening the appellant and respondent No.6 with liability to pay the compensation to the respondents 1 to 4 -- claimants in the claim petition.

4. Heard and considered.

The liability of an owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation to the victim of the vehicular accident or representatives of the deceased victim is stems from the principle of vicarious liability. The doctrine of vicarious liability is based on the maxim, Qiu facit per allum facit per se, which means "he who does an act through another, is deemed in law to do it himself". The maxim "Respondent superior" which means "let the superior be liable" is also relied upon to justify shifting of the liability from the servant (wrong doer) to his master (superior). The liability is put on the superior or master for expediency and also as a dictate of public policy. Firstly, if the liability to pay compensation is imposed on the servant, the victim or his legal representatives may not be able to collect the compensation for the injury/loss suffered. Secondly, the superior (master) would have no reason or incentive to be careful in selecting his servants. It follows, that if a person, instead of doing an act himself, chooses to have the act done through some other person, he must do so at his own risk and cost. It is for the person who wants to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document