Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
Bharat Singh and Another - Appellant
Vs.
Madan Kunwar and Others - Respondent
M.A. No. 734 of 2009
Decided On : 10-04-2013
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability - 173
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an appeal against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, where the liability to pay compensation was fastened against the son of the appellants, who was not the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The deceased was riding a motorcycle when it was hit by a rashly driven tempo, resulting in fatal injuries. The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the definition of 'owner' under the Motor Vehicles Act, both under the old and new Acts, and considered various judgments to interpret the legal provisions. The court found that the registered owner of the vehicle should be deemed as the 'owner' for the purpose of the Act, unless the possession of the vehicle is under a hire-purchase, lease, or hypothecation agreement. The court set aside the finding of liability against the son of the appellants and directed the registered owner to discharge the liability under the impugned award.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the definition of 'owner' under the Motor Vehicles Act and the determination of liability in a compensation claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of 'owner' under the Motor Vehicles Act, which deemed the registered owner as the 'owner' unless the possession of the vehicle was under a hire-purchase, lease, or hypothecation agreement.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the finding of liability against the son of the appellants, and directed the registered owner to discharge the liability under the impugned award.
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 26/9/2008 passed by 1st Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 74/2007 assailing the finding of liability to pay compensation fastened against the son of the appellants though not, the registered owner. The facts, in brief are that on 30/10/2006 at about 8.00 p.m. deceased-Vikram Singh went on motorcycle with Guddu and Talveer Singh to Sitamau to purchase medicines, while coming back, Tempo bearing registration No. M.P. O7-T/2041 driven rashly and negligently by the driver namely Kushal Singh dashed the standing motorcycle on the bank of the road. These persons sitting or the motorcycle fell down and sustained injuries out from Vikram Singh succumbed due to those injuries. Thus seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,40,000/- application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the claimants.
2. The Driver Kushal Singh filed the written statement, inter-alia, contending that he was engaged as driver by the owner Pradeep Kumar and driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident. The fact regarding commission of accident, and other claim averments have also been denied by him.
3. Respondent-Pradeep Kumar filed written statement, inter-alia, contending that the vehicle in question has been sold to Bhanu Pratap Singh vide agreement dated 31/12/2005, however, for the accident, if any, took place, he is not responsible to pay the amount of compensation. It is further contended that deceased himself driving the motorcycle in a drunken position, however, he himself was negligent, therefore, he is not liable to pay any amount of compensation for the negligence of the deceased himself.
4. Respondent-Bhanu Pratap Singh, by filing written statement, who is heavenly aboard during pendency, stated that he is neither the registered owner nor in possession of the offending vehicle. In fact, the vehicle was of the ownership and possession of respondent-Pradeep Kumar, however he is responsible to the accident and also liable to pay compensation. It is also contended that the accident has taken place due to negligence of the deceased himself, therefore, claim petition may be dismissed.
5. Learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence brought on record and relying upon the affidavit Ex. D/1, intimation in writing Ex. D/2 and U.P.C. Ex. D/3 and also the seizure memo held that the vehicle in question was in the possession of respondent Bhanu Pratap Singh after the purchase from respondent Pradeep Kumar, therefore, compensation calculated Rs. 2,16,000/- is payable by Bhanu Pratap Singh, and absolved the respondent Pradeep Kumar, from the liability to pay the amount of compensation.
6. Assailing the said finding, father and mother of respondent Bhanu Pratap Singh since deceased have filed this appeal, inter-alia, contending that for the purpose of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. (For brevity it be referred as M.V. Act) and the definition of owner specified u/s 2(30), deceased-Bhanu Pratap Singh cannot be treated to be the owner, therefore, the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal directing to pay the amount of compensation by him is unsustainable in law. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Chatru Lal (1995) ACJ 533, Satish Sanghi Vs. Mihir Kumar Joshi and Others, (1993) ACJ 893, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hamid Khan Vs. Guddibai and Others (2003) ACJ 521, Aditya Khare v. Jamuna Prasad Kahar and four Ors. 2085, the Division Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vipin Kumar Sharma Vs. Jagwant Kaur and Others (2007) ACJ 1249, and another judgment of the Single Bench of the same High Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Vs. Zeena and Others (2008) ACJ 973, and the judgment of Gauhati High Court in the case of Smt
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
