Dev Kishan & Anr vs M. A. C. T. Udaipur & Ors on 9 November, 2009

                                1

DEV KISHAN & ANR. VS. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, UDAIPUR & ORS.
(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10379/09)

Dated:-   9.11.09.

                  HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA


Mr. R.S.Mankad, for the petitioner.


1.    This writ petition is directed against order dated 20.4.09

passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur whereby

an application preferred by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10

(2) read with Section 151 CPC for deleting their names from the

array of the respondents, stands rejected.

2.    The respondent no. 4 to 8 have preferred an application

u/s 166, 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( in short "the Act")

before the tribunal inter alia against the petitioners claiming

compensation on account of death of their husband/father in an

accident occurred on 8.10.05 . The vehicle i.e. Tractor No. RJ-

27/R/1887 involved in accident is registered in the name of the

petitioners   therefore, they have been impleaded in the claim

petition as respondents-non claimants.

3.    The petitioners preferred an application under Order I Rule

10(2) of CPC for deleting their names from the array of the

respondents on the ground that as on the date of the accident

they were not owner of the vehicle inasmuch as, they had sold

the vehicle to the respondent no. 3 herein on 23.10.04 and the
                                  2

relevant forms i.e. Form No.29 and 30 for the transfer of the

vehicle were also handed over to the purchaser, the respondent

no. 3 herein, on 5.11.04. The petitioner submitted before the

tribunal that since the sale of the vehicle by the petitioners to

the respondent no. 3 herein is not in dispute therefore, no

liability can be fastened upon them as the owner of the vehicle

involved in the accident and they cannot be compelled to contest

the claim petition. It was submitted that even after lapse of one

year from the date of transfer if the purchaser has not got the

vehicle registered in his name then the petitioners cannot be

made to suffer on the ground that they continue to be registered

owner of the vehicle .

4.    The tribunal has rejected the application holding that the

fact that transfer of the vehicle by the petitioners to the

respondent no. 3 herein and handing over of the possession of

the vehicle is in dispute therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said

that the petitioners have no liability as a registered owner of the

vehicle.

5.    It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners

that the learned tribunal has seriously erred in rejecting the

application preferred by the petitioners on the ground that the

transfer of the vehicle and handing over of the possession

thereof is in dispute. The learned counsel submitted that the

petitioners had completed the legal formalities as prescribed
                                  3

under the law for transfer of the vehicle inasmuch as From No.

29 and 30 duly filled and signed were handed over by them to

the transferee-respondent no.3. It is submitted by the learned

counsel that it was duty of the transferee to get the vehicle

registered in their name. The learned counsel submitted that

admittedly as on the date of the accident the vehicle was in

possession   of   the   respondent   no.3   therefore,   no   liability

whatsoever can be fastened upon the petitioners and they could

not have been impleaded as respondents-non claimants in the

claim petition preferred before the learned tribunal. In support of

his contention the learned counsel has relied upon the decision

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Godwari Finance

Co.(M/s.) vs. Degla Satyanarayanamma", ACTC 2008(2), 625

and "National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi & Ors.",

ACTC 2008(1), 1 and a Bench decision of this court in the matter

of "Om Prakash vs. Mool Chand & Ors.", ACTC2008(1), 489.

6.   In Om Prakash's case (supra), a Bench of this Court while

considering the question as to whether a person who is not the

registered owner of the vehicle cannot be held liable for

compensation observed:

        "8. The provisions relating to compensation in accident
        cases are in the nature of beneficial legislation for the
        benefit of the victims of the motor accidents and the
        victim cannot be left in the lurch for failure of the
        transferee to get the ownership transferred in his name.
        The legislature apparently did not envisage that the
        transferee will not get the ownership transferred in his
                                4

       name and yet take the plea that he is not liable for
       compensation . If such interpretation were to accepted it
       would amount to giving premium to default. No person
       can be allowed to claim benefit of his own default.


7.   In National Insurance Limited's case (supra), wherein the

vehicle involved in accident was admittedly requisitioned by the

State for the purpose of election, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that no alternative was available to owner of the vehicle

except to hand over the possession to the statutory authority

therefore, the State being in possession of the vehicle shall be

liable to pay compensation and not the owner of the vehicle or

insurance company.

8.   There is no quarrel with the proposition of the law laid

down by this court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But then, in

the instant case, the respondent no. 3 alleged transferee of the

vehicle has taken a categorical stand in the reply that he had

never purchased the vehicle in question from the petitioners

herein and further that the documents of transfer produced

before the tribunal are forged. Thus, unless it is proved before

the tribunal on the basis of the evidence that before the date of

the accident, the vehicle had already been transferred by the

petitioners to the respondent no.3 and as on the date of the

accident, the possession of the vehicle was with him, the

petitioners plea that they have no liability for payment of

compensation cannot be accepted. Thus, in considered opinion of
                                  5

this court, since the factum of transfer and handing over of the

possession of the vehicle is in dispute therefore, the learned

tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the application

preferred by the petitioners for deleting their names from the

array of the respondents.

9.   In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.



                                           (SANGEET LODHA),J.