IMPORTANT POINT
The registered owner of a vehicle at the time of an accident is liable for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, regardless of any subsequent transfer of ownership.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Subramanian, J.)

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2017 made in MCOP No.381 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/The Special District Court, Erode.)

The claimants, who are the parents of one S.Prakash, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 26.10.2013 are on appeal, challenging the award of the Tribunal making the first and the fourth respondents, before the Tribunal as well as in this Appeal, liable to pay the compensation awarded in MCOP No.381 of 2014.

2. The facts that led to the filing of the claim petition in MCOP No.381 of 2014 are as follows:

2.1. On 26.10.2023, while the deceased Prakash was returning from his work in his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN 38 AM 9002 on Erode Karur Main Road from west to east, the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN 33 AK 5529 owned by the second respondent, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him. As a result of the impact, the deceased was thrown of the motor cycle suffered a head injury and died on the spot. It was contended that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.7,175/- as salary and also a sum of Rs.15,000/- by doing real estate business. Terming the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor as the cause of the accident and justifying the quantum pleading that the deceased was earning about Rs.22,175/- per month as stated above, the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

2.2. The first respondent resisted the claim petition contending that he was not driving the tractor and the accident did not occur in the manner suggested by the claimants.

2.3. The second respondent filed a counter contending that he was not aware of the accident. He had pleaded that he had sold the tractor to the fourth respondent Mahesh, even on 20.09.2013 and therefore, the said Mahesh alone is liable to pay the compensation. It was also claimed that he had informed the Regional Transport Officer, Erode on 22.09.2013 and he had issued a notice to Mahesh requiring him to get the records transferred in his name and the said Mahesh had sent a reply 05.08.2015 stating that he had effected the transfer with effect from 20.09.2013. He would also contend that the said Mahesh is a necessary party to the application.

2.4. Upon such plea having been taken, the said Mahesh was impleaded as the fourth respondent. He filed a counter admitting ownership of the Tractor and the purchase of the Tractor on 20.09.2013. It was also claimed that the deceased was responsible for the accident. The second respondent filed an additional counter contending that the possession of the Tractor was handed over to Mahesh on 20.09.2013 and therefore, he cannot be held liable for payment of compensation, he having parted with the vehicle.

3. At trial, the first claimant mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Sivakumar was examined as P.W.2. Exhibits A1 to A13 were marked. On the side of the respondents one Thiru.Thirumalairajan, was examined as R.W.1 and Sakthivel, the second respondent was examined as R.W.2. Exhibits R1 to R9 were marked. The letter issued by the Regional Transport Officer was marked as Ex.R1 and the order of transfer was marked as Ex.R2, the delivery receipt and the possession receipt were marked as Exs.R3 and R4. The letter said to have been sent by the second respondent to the Regional Transport Officer, Erode, was marked asEx.R5.

4. On a consideration of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the Tractor;

2. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners?

3. Who is liable to pay the compensation?

5. On a consideration of the evidence on record, viz. the FIR, the Sketch and the Inquest Report, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tra