Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15042
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice K.RAJASEKAR
SREE SAKTHI BAJAJI – Appellant
Versus
S.PRABAKARAN – Respondent
Dealers are liable for accidents involving unregistered vehicles they sell, emphasizing statutory compliance before allowing vehicles on public roads.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Section 39, Motor Vehicles Act; Rule 42, Central Motor Vehicles Rules - The court interpreted statutory registration requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act and its regulations, confirming the dealer's liability for an accident involving an unregistered vehicle, emphasizing the necessity for proper registration before road use.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a dealer, sold an unregistered two-wheeler to a purchaser who, while driving with a learner's license, caused an accident with the claimant, resulting in severe injuries. The claimant sought compensation from the dealer, owner, and insurer.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found the purchaser negligent and the dealer liable due to violation of statutory registration rules, directing the insurer to pay compensation and recover it from the dealer and owner.
Issues: Whether the dealer could be held liable for compensation due to the accident caused by the unregistered vehicle driven by the purchaser who held a learner's license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that driving an unregistered vehicle, as per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, constituted a violation, holding both the dealer and purchaser liable despite previous rulings that a dealer should not permit driving before registration.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, confirming the Tribunal's award.
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the third respondent in M.C.O.P.No.388 of 2017 challenging the award dated 27.11.2020, whereby, the Tribunal has held that the third respondent/appellant herein is liable to pay compensation to the claimant therein along with the first respondent.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred herein according to their litigative status and rank before the Tribunal.
3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal is as follows:
The appellant herein is a two wheeler dealer, sold the unregistered two wheeler bearing Chassis No.MD2A55FZ90CGA 13859 and Engine No.JLZCGA26256, to the first respondent insured with the second respondent. Before effecting registration of the vehicle, the first respondent, who is the holder of learner's licence, while driving the vehicle on 01.06.2016 at about 8.30 AM met with an accident by hitting on the two wheeler driven by the claimant. The accident resulted in causing severe injuries to the claimant and he had come forward with the claim petition seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- against the owner, dealer and insurer of the two wheeler.
4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 01.06.2016 at about 8.30 AM, when he was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 33 AD 2089 on the Solar to Moolapalayam Road near Manickkavasagar Colony, Erode, at the left hand side of the road by observing traffic rules and regulations, opposite to the very same road, the first respondent riding an unregistered two wheeler in negligent manner and uncontrollable speed, came in the wrong side and dashed on the two wheeler of the claimant, which resulted in causing grievous injuries. After undergoing treatment, he came forward with the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. The first respondent/purchaser filed a counter and contended that he is not responsible for the accident and on the date of accident, originally, his two wheeler was hit by an unknown Splendor motorcyle, as a result of which, he fell down and at that time, the claimant was driving his two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the first respondent's unregistered vehicle.
6. The Insurance Company contested the claim on the ground that the unregistered vehicle was plied in the road by the person, who was not having valid driving licence and without proper registration, thereby statutory violations are committed. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and the owner and the dealer of the vehicle alone are liable to pay compensation.
7. The dealer of the vehicle disputed the manner in which the accident had taken place and also submitted that the unregistered vehicle was properly insured and on the date of occurrence, insurance was in force. The first respondent has already purchased the vehicle on 11.05.2016 and as per the Motor Vehicles Act, the vehicle sold unregistered has to be registered with the Regional Transport Authority within a period of one month. The Regional Transport Authority was not issuing temporary registration in Erode District. For the purpose of registering the vehicle, the two wheeler was taken to the Regional Transport Authority and at that time, accident has taken place. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. There is no violation of policy condition or any statutory violation and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the first respondent/owner of the vehicle.
8. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 were marked. On the side of the owner of the vehicle, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, R.W.3 was examined and Ex.R4 to Ex.R7 were marked. On the side of the dealer/appellant herein, R.W.4 was examined and Ex.R8 to Ex.R15 were marked. Court exhibit Ex.C1 was also marked.
9. The Tribunal, aft
