Vicarious liability applies to vehicle owners for accidents involving their registered vehicles, despite claims of non-ownership.

JUDGMENT

The aforementioned appeal was preferred by the 1^st respondent in OP(MV) No. 1007/2017, following the award passed on 29.07.2019 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The appellant is aggrieved by the liability cast upon him by the Tribunal, contending that at the time of the accident, he was no longer the owner of the involved vehicle.

2. The accident occurred on 13.11.2016 at approximately 1:30 p.m. along the Chittilancherry-Kottakulam public road. While the 1^st respondent was walking along the road, she was struck by a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-8L–5397 and sustained injuries. It was the 1^st respondent’s contention that the accident was caused by the negligence of the 2^nd respondent, who was riding the motorcycle at that time. Furthermore, as the appellant was the registered owner (RC owner), the 1^st respondent maintained that both the appellant and the

2^nd respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3. The Tribunal tried the original petition by framing mainly two issues.

. whether the accident occurred due to negligence on the side of 2^nd respondent.

. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation as claimed before . Relief and costs.

4. The Tribunal examined documents marked Ext.A1 to A12 submitted by the petitioner. Based on these documents, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal concluded that the negligence of the 2^nd respondent was sufficiently proven. Consequently, it was held that the accident occurred solely due to the 2nd respondent’s negligence. Similarly, based on Ext.A4, Ext.A8, and other available medical records, the Tribunal affirmed that the 1^st respondent sustained the alleged injuries. Following a detailed assessment of the medical bills and other claims, the Tribunal awarded the 1^st respondent compensation totalling Rs. 1,02,778/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition until the date of deposit.

5. While the Tribunal considered the appellant’s contention that the vehicle had been transferred in 2004, it found that no evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. Additionally, Ext.A6 (produced by the 1^st respondent) and the Assistant Motor Vehicle (AMV) Inspector’s report both confirmed that the vehicle remained registered in the appellant’s name. Consequently, the appellant’s defence was rejected. The Tribunal held that, as the registered owner (RC owner), the appellant is vicariously liable; thus, both the appellant and the 2^nd respondent are jointly and severally liable to compensate the 1^st respondent. This finding formed the basis of the present appeal by the appellant, who denies ownership at the time of the accident.

6. In this regard, the appellant has produced Annexure A1, a certificate issued by the Joint Regional Transport Officer (JRTO), Wadakkanchery (No. C4/2530/2022/RW dated 31.07.2023). This document certifies that the appellant was the registered owner of vehicle KL-08L-5397 only from 13.07.1998 to 04.06.2000. The JRTO further certified that the vehicle was transferred to one Sujesh M. (S/o Gopalakrishnan Nair, Kurutholayil House, Kuppilassery P.O.) with effect from 05.06.2004. The appellant produced this certificate to substantiate that he was no longer the owner at the time of the accident on 13.11.2016.

7. On the basis of Annexure A1, the appellant sought to implead the person named therein as the owner by filing IA No.2 of 2023 in MACA No. 2549 of 2023. By an order dated 17.10.2024, this Court allowed the IA, finding that the proposed additional 3^rd respondent is a necessary party to the litigation. It must be noted, however,