Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 8961
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VAIBHAV JAIN – Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN MOTORS PVT. LTD. – Respondent
C.A. No.-010192-010192 - 2024
Important Points
Subject
Motor Accident Claims - Liability and Compensation
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Ownership and Liability - The definition of 'owner' under Section 2(30) of the M.V. Act is critical in determining liability - The court emphasized that mere possession as a dealer does not equate to ownership for liability purposes. (Paras 13, 20)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was an employee of the vehicle's manufacturer and died in an accident while the vehicle was taken for a test drive by employees of the manufacturer. The dealer was held liable by the Tribunal, which was contested in appeal. (Paras 4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the dealer was neither the owner nor in control of the vehicle at the time of the accident, thus not liable for compensation. (Paras 33, 34)
Issues: The main issues included whether the dealer could be considered the owner of the vehicle and whether the manufacturer could be absolved of liability based on the dealership agreement. (Paras 12, 33)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that ownership under the M.V. Act is determined by control and command over the vehicle, not merely by possession as a dealer. (Paras 20, 33)
Result: Appeal allowed to the extent that the dealer is not liable for compensation.
J U D G M E N T
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur1 dated 15.11.2017, whereby Miscellaneous Appeal (Civil) No.1306 of 2007 filed by the appellant was dismissed and Miscellaneous Appeal (Civil) No.1147/2017 filed by the claimant(s) was allowed thereby enhancing the compensation already awarded to them.
1 High Court
3. At the outset, we would like to put on record that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the impugned order was filed by impleading six respondents. Respondents 1 to 4 (R-1 to R-4) were heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Pranay Kumar Goswami on whose accidental death the claim arose. Respondent no.5 (R-5), namely, Shubhashish Pal, was the person who drove the vehicle at the time of accident; and Respondent no.6 (R-6), namely, M/s Hindustan Motors, was the manufacturer of the vehicle. However, on 23.10.2018, this Court issued notice only to the manufacturer (R-6) (i.e., M/s Hindustan Motors) and the SLP was dismissed qua R-1 to R-5 by observing that the question raised in the matter is about the liability of the dealer (i.e., the appellant). Therefore, in our view, the impugned award has attained finality insofar as the rights of the claimant-respondents are concerned. In consequence, it appears, the Registry has shown M/s Hindustan Motors as the sole respondent though, initially, there were six respondents. Be that as it may to have a clear understanding of the matter, we shall describe the parties as they were described in the SLP at the time of its presentation.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. A claim petition for death compensation was filed before the Tribunal by claimant-respondents (R-1 to R-4)
(i.e., legal heirs of the deceased who died in the accident), under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19882, against driver of the offending vehicle (R-5); M/s. Hindustan Motors Private Limited (R-6) (i.e., manufacturer of the vehicle); and Vaibhav Jain (i.e., Proprietor of M/s Vaibhav Motors - the dealer of R-6) (the appellant herein). The deceased was R-6’s Territory Manager whereas the driver of the vehicle was R-6’s Service Engineer. Thus, the driver and the deceased were employees of R-6 (i.e., M/s Hindustan Motors). The accident took place when the vehicle was taken out for a test drive from the dealership of the appellant.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, five issues were framed by the Tribunal. Out of those five, the issue relevant for the purposes of this appeal is:
Whether prior to the accident M/s. Hindustan Motors had sold the offending vehicle to M/s. Vaibhav Motors (i.e., the dealer)? If not, whether the dealer can be held liable for the compensation, jointly and severally, with M/s.
Hindustan Motors?
6. As regards issue of ownership of the vehicle, the Tribunal held that on the day of accident, M/s. Hindustan Motors was the owner of the vehicle though Vaibhav Motors was in possession of the vehicle as its dealer.
2 M.V. Act
Based on that, the Tribunal held M/s. Hindustan Motors as well as M/s. Vaibhav Motors (the appellant) jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.
7. Aggrieved by quantum of the compensation awarded, the claimants (R-1 to R-4) preferred Miscellaneous Appeal (Civil) No.1147/2017 before the High Court; whereas vide Miscellaneous Appeal (Civil) No.1306/2007, the dealer (i.e., the appellant herein) questioned the award to the extent it made him jointly and severally liable for payment of the compensation.
8. Both the aforesaid appeals were heard simultaneously and disposed of by the impugned order. The claimants’ appeal was allowed, and the compensation was enhanced.
However, the appellant’s appeal was dismissed.
9. We have heard Shri Arup Banerjee for the appellant and Ms. Purti Gupta for M/s Hindustan Motors; and have also perused the materials on record.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted:
(i) On the date of accident, the owner of the
