Liability in motor vehicle accidents can extend to parties beyond the registered owner based on who had control of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

ORDER

This petition is by the first respondent in MVC No.1985/2016 on the file of the II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH 13), [for short, ‘the Tribunal’]. The petitioner has impugned the Tribunal’s order dated 22.10.2021. The Tribunal by this order has rejected the petitioner’s application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’). The petitioner has filed this application for being struck off from the array of parties in the first respondent’s claim petition in MVC No.1985/2016 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’).

2. The first respondent has filed her petition in MVC No.1985/2016 claiming a sum of Rs.89,19,425/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by her in a road accident on 26.04.2013 involving a motor vehicle [Toyota Innova Car] bearing registration No. KA-05-ML-0954 [the offending vehicle] within the second respondent’s premises in Bengaluru. She contends that she was approached by the fourth respondent on behalf of the petitioner to shoot “Q Service AV Film” [subject film], and she was in the second respondent’s premises on 26.04.2013 for a recce when the sixth respondent [an employee with the second respondent] caused the accident because he was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently.

3. For the purposes of the present petition, it would suffice to record that the first respondent, adverting to the different emails exchanged with the representatives of the petitioner and the other concerned respondents, contends that though certain compensation was assured initially not just by the petitioner’s representative but also the representatives of the other concerned respondents, they have reneged on such assurance. On the petitioner being arrayed as a respondent in the claim petition, the first respondent has referred to the petitioner as the owner of the offending vehicle and she has referred to the fifth respondent as the insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. Further, the first respondent has asserted that the second and third respondents are arrayed as respondents because the accident has occurred within the second respondent’s premises and the third respondent is its managing director. As regards the fourth respondent, the first respondent has asserted that it would be liable to compensation claimed because it has failed to ensure her safety at the place of work. The sixth respondent according to the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.

5. The second, third and sixth respondents have filed common written statement1, A copy of the pleadings and the evidence and exhibits before the Tribunal are placed before this Court by both the petitioner and the first respondent for this Court’s perusal. contending that the second respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the petitioner, who had engaged the services of the fourth respondent to produce a promotional film titled ‘Q Service’, requested the second respondent for permission to shoot the film at its service centre. The fourth respondent sent the first respondent among certain others to recce, and the alleged accident has occurred only because the first respondent was constantly on her phone without regard for the safety norms. Significantly, these respondents have not attempted to deflect onto the petitioner the liability to pay compensation if determined as payable by the Tribunal. More significantly, the fifth respondent [the insurer] has filed statement of objections denying the first respondent’s assert