SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(MP) 73

II (1993) ACC 648, 1993 ACJ 893
R.D. Shukla, J.
Satish Sanghi
vs
Mihir Kumar Joshi And Ors.
DECIDED ON : 20 January, 1993

The registered owner of a motor vehicle is liable for compensation in case of an accident unless the contrary is proved.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - OWNERSHIP - LIABILITY - HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BURDEN OF PROOF - COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT.

Fact of the Case:

A motor accident occurred involving a scooter and a car, resulting in injuries to the scooter rider. The owner of the car (appellant) claimed that he had sold the car to another person (respondent No. 3) before the accident and was therefore not liable for compensation. The claimant filed a claim for compensation against the car owner, the driver, and the alleged transferee.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant was the registered owner of the car at the time of the accident and that there was no evidence of a hire-purchase agreement or any other agreement transferring ownership to respondent No. 3. The court also found that the driver was acting as an agent of the appellant and respondent No. 3.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was the owner of the car at the time of the accident. 2. Whether the driver was acting as an agent of the appellant and respondent No. 3. 3. Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation and, if so, the quantum of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'owner' under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act includes a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. 2. The burden of proof lies on the person claiming to be the owner of a motor vehicle to show that the possession of the vehicle is covered under the exceptions given in the definition of 'owner'. 3. In the absence of evidence of a hire-purchase agreement or any other agreement transferring ownership, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is liable for compensation in case of an accident. 4. The driver of a motor vehicle is deemed to be the agent of the owner unless the contrary is proved.

Final Decision: The court held that the appellant was the owner of the car at the time of the accident and that the driver was acting as an agent of the appellant and respondent No. 3. The court also held that the claimant was entitled to compensation and enhanced the compensation awarded by the lower court from Rs. 17,333.08 to Rs. 23,150/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realization.

JUDGMENT

R.D. Shukla, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 4.2.1983 of the End Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, passed in Claim Case No. 195 of 1979, whereby while awarding the compensation to claimant-applicant Mihir Kumar (respondent No. 1 here), the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have been jointly made liable for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,333.08 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

2. The brief history of the case is that on the date of incident, i.e., on 14.5.1979 at about 9.15 p.m. the claimant Mihir Kumar was going on his scooter No. CPF 3318 from Regal Theatre towards Palasia. His younger sister Kamakshi Joshi was sitting on the pillion. The motor car No. MPI 1144 driven by Abdul Salam (respondent No. 2 here) came from the front of Anand Bhawan, M.G. Road. The motor car was in an excessive speed. It dashed against the scooter resulting in injuries to the claimant and damaged the scooter as well. The claimant was taken to the hospital. He was treated and operated twice. There was a fracture of right femur. Nailing had to be done. This has created deficiency in the walking.

3. The claimant was working as an Engineer in Gajara Gears. He could not attend duty for months together. The claimant had applied before the Union Public Service Commission and in two private concerns, namely, J.K. Synthetics and Vaishnav Polytechnic, but he could not appear in the interview because of the accident. His leg has also shortened by about 172 inch. Hence he claimed Rs. 10,000/- for pain and mental agony, Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses for medical treatment, Rs. 15,000/- possible expenses towards the transport facilities because of the physical infirmity, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of wage earnings, Rs. 50,000/- for permanent partial disability. Thus, he claimed a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation. The non-applicant No. 2 (appellant here) denied the fact of accident, negligent driving and further pleaded that on the date of incident this appellant (NA 2) was not the owner of the vehicle as he had sold it to Mukhtiyar Ahmed (respondent No. 3 here) on a price of Rs. 16,500/-. Out of that Rs. 11,875/- was paid by him, and thereafter the possession was also delivered to him. The registration of the vehicle stood in the name of the appellant (NA 2) as the whole of the sale amount was not paid by respondent No. 3. It has also been asserted that the driver was neither the agent nor servant of the present appellant (NA 2).

4. The respondent No. 3, Mukhtiyar Ahmed, filed separate reply to the claim petition and while denying the fact of rash and negligent driving and the injuries to the claimant it was pleaded by him that vehicle was purchased by him on hire-purchase basis and had kept the vehicle for repairs with one Sardarkhan, mechanic, who without his consent gave the vehicle for driving to Abdul Salam, driver. He, therefore, is not responsible for payment of any compensation.

5. After hearing, the learned Tribunal in an exhaustive judgment has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of motor car No. MPI 1144 and thereafter the driver ran away from the spot. The claimant was thrown from the scooter and sustained injuries including the fracture of right femur. He had to be operated twice for the same. He was under plaster for months and the nailing had to be done. The claimant was earning Rs. 650/- p.m. at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal has further held that the driver was plying the vehicle as an agent of non-applicant-respondent No. 2, i.e., present appellant and Mukhtiyar Ahmed, respondent No. 3. An award as above was granted in favour of the claimant and all the NAs including present appellant were made jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. Now, this appeal has been filed by present appellant mainly on the grounds that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of incident as the vehicle













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top