TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the registering authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the First Respondent was the 'owner' of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The submission of the Petitioner is that a failure to intimate the transfer will only result in a fine Under Section 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the vehicle - for the purposes of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the registering authority is the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law must be fulfil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rally liable together with the driver of the vehicle. The vehicle was uninsured on the date of the accident. 3. The award of the Tribunal was challenged by the First Respondent in appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal on 25 January 2016 on the ground that there was no justification for the Tribunal to pass an award against the registered owner when there was evidence that he had transferred the vehicle and the last admitted owner was the Appellant herein. In the view of the High Court, the Tribunal ought to have passed an award only against the Appellant as the owner. In coming to this conclusion the High Court relied upon two decisions of this Court: HDFC Bank Limited v. Reshma (2015) 3 SCC 679 and Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam (2014) 14 SCC 142. 4. On behalf of the Appellant, it has been submitted that the High Court has proceeded on a manifestly erroneous construction of the legal position. It has been urged that Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 indicates that the person in whose name a motor vehicle is registered is the owner and the only two exceptions to that principle are where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in physical possession and control of the vehicle should be made liable; and (iv) Section 50 casts the onus of changing the name in the registration certificate, on both the transferor as well as the transferee, and hence the transferor (the registered owner) cannot be made liable, and the transferee who has control over the use of vehicle should be made liable. 6. The expression 'owner' is defined in Section 2(30) of the Act, 1988, thus: 2(30) owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. The person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act. The use of the expression 'means' is a clear indication of the position that it is the registered owner who Parliament has regarded as the owner of the vehicle. In the earlier Act of 1939, the expression 'owner' was defined in Section 2(19) as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficate has been obtained,-- (I) the receipt obtained Under Sub-section (2) of Section 48; or (II) the postal acknowledgement received by the transferred if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgement due to the registering authority referred to in Section 48, together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted; (b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration. (2) Where-- (a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, or (b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... la (supra) was in a case where the offending vehicle was registered in the name of J who had sold it to S on 2 February 1993 and had given possession to the transferee. On the date of the transfer the truck was covered by a valid policy of insurance. Despite the sale of the vehicle the change of ownership was not reflected in the certificate of registration. The policy of insurance expired on 24 February 1993. Subsequently S took out an insurance policy in the name of the registered owner and it was valid and subsisting when the accident took place on 7 May 1994. The Tribunal held that no liability to pay compensation attached to J since he had ceased to be the owner of the vehicle after its sale on 2 February 1993. S alone was held to be liable for the payment of compensation to the claimants. On these facts the Bench of two judges of this Court held as follows: 11. It is undeniable that notwithstanding the sale of the vehicle neither the transferor Jitender Gupta nor the transferee Salig Ram took any step for the change of the name of the owner in the certificate of registration of the vehicle. In view of this omission Jitender Gupta must be deemed to continue as the owner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out adverting to Section 5 of the Assam Act, merely on the basis of the definition of owner as contained in Section 2(30) of the 1988 Act, mulcted the award payable by the owner of the vehicle. The High Court failed to appreciate that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was under the requisition of Respondent 1 State of Assam under the provisions of the Assam Act. Therefore, Respondent 1 was squarely covered under the definition of owner as contained in Section 2(30) of the 1988 Act. The High Court failed to appreciate the underlying legislative intention in including in the definition of owner a person in possession of a vehicle either under an agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation or under a hire-purchase agreement to the effect that a person in control and possession of the vehicle should be construed as the owner and not alone the registered owner. The High Court further failed to appreciate the legislative intention that the registered owner of the vehicle should not be held liable if the vehicle was not in his possession and control. The High Court also failed to appreciate that Section 146 of the 1988 Act requires that no person shall use or cause o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt, Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) adverted during the course of the judgment to the principles laid down by this Court in several earlier decisions, including of this Court. Mohan Benefit (P) Ltd. v. Kachraji Raymalji, (1997) 9 SCC 103: 1997 SCC (Cri) 610; Rajasthan SRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari, (1997) 7 SCC 481; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi, (2008) 1 SCC 414: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 270: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 209; Mukesh K. Tripathi v. LIC: (2004) 8 SCC 387: 2004 SCC (L S) 1128, Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi (2004) 5 SCC 409, State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Assn. (2002) 1 SCC 589: 5 SCEC 217, Pandey Co. Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2007) 1 SCC 467 and placed reliance on Kailash Nath Kothari [Rajasthan SRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari, (1997) 7 SCC 481, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya Kumar Samal: (1988) 1 ACC 204 : (1988) 2 TAC 25 (Ori) and Bhavnagar Municipality v. Bachubhai Arjanbhai: AIR 1996 Guj 51; Godavari Finance Co. v. Degala Satyanarayanamma, (2008) 5 SCC 107: (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 531; Pushpa v. Shakuntala, (2011) 2 SCC 240: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 399: (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 682; T.V. Jose [ (2001) 8 SCC 748: 2002 SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the registering authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the First Respondent was the 'owner' of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments of this Court in Reshma and Purnya Kala Devi. 13. The submission of the Petitioner is that a failure to intimate the transfer will only result in a fine Under Section 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the vehicle. In Dr. T.V. Jose, this Court observed that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. But for the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
