Hon. Devi Prasad Singh,J Hon. Dr. Satish Chandra,J (Delivered by Hon.Dr.Satish Chandra,J) This first appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 26.5.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unnao in Claim Petition No. 257 of 2005 where a compensation of Rs. 2,28,200/ was awarded along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
The brief facts, in narrow compass, are that on 24.5.2005 at about 1' O clock in the noon, the deceased Ram Saran was returning on cycle after purchasing the diesel. On the opposite side, the driver of a Jeep No.UP X-5366 was driving the jeep carelessly and negligently and hit the deceased. The deceased sustained serious injuries and immediately he was taken to Primary Health Center, later on shifted to Gandhi Memorial and Associate Hospital, where he died on 29.5.2005 at about 3.30 p.m.. The deceased was aged about 50 years and he was earning a sum of Rs. 3600/per month. So the Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd, took a sum of Rs.24,000/ as annual income of the claimant and by applying the multiplier of a sum of Rs.2,16,000/ was awarded. In addition for funeral charges, consortium and medical expanses, a sum or Rs.2000/ +5000/ +2500/ +2700/ were also awarded. Thus a total sum of Rs. 2,28,200/ was awarded in favour of the claimant along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the petition. The jeep in question was owned by the appellant i.e the Executive Engineer Ground Water Surevey, Faizabad. It was not insured so, the Tribunal fixed the liability to its owner.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for appellant has accepted the accident and quantum. The only argument raised is pertaining to the ownership of the vehicle in question. According to him , the appellants were the owners of the vehicle in question but prior to the accident, the said jeep was sold to one Mohd. Asim (respondent No. 4) in auction and possession was given to him on 2.9.2004. So, on the date of accident, the appellant was not the owner. He further submits that as per section 15 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, the liability to move application for transfer of ownership before the registering authority is on the shoulder of purchaser or who has secured the motor vehicle in auction. He also submits that the responsibility to move an application for transfer of ownership was only on the shoulder of the purchaser i.e Mohd. Asim. Hence, the appellant could not be declared the owner of the vehicle specially in the circumstances when the transaction has already been completed. Mohd. Asim has purchased the vehicle in auction and he has deposited the money in the Treasury, therefore, the purchaser Mohd. Asim is solely liable to make the payment of compensation. The tribunal has wrongly awarded the compensation by violating the provisions of Section 5o (2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
On the other hand none appeared on behalf of the respondents.
We have heard the learned counsel for appellant at length and gone through the material available on record.
The learned counsel for appellant in support of his argument submits that the question of the liability of the recorded owner of the vehicle has to be examined under different provisions of the Act.
Section-2(30) of the Act, deals with owner, "owner" which 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; Then, section 50 of the Act lays down the procedure for transfer of ownership. It is a long section and insofar as relevant it is reproduced below:
50. Transfer of ownership.
(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,-
(a) the transferor shall,-
(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and
(ii) xxxxxxx
(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) xxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxx (5) xxxxxxx (6) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1), or an application under subsection (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration.
(7) A registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the transfer of ownership to the transferor and to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority."
It may be mentioned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpa alias Leela and others vs.Shakuntala and others, AIR 2011 Supreme Court, 682 dealt with the question of transfer of ownership of the vehicle prior to accident, the Hon'ble court observed that , "When neither transferor nor transferee took any step for change of name of owner in certificate of registration then transferor must be deemed to continue as owner of the vehicle for purposes of Act even though under civil law he would cease to be owner after sale of vehicle."
Thus, the liability lies with the owner whose name is appearing in the registration certificate of the vehicle.In the instant case, the vehicle in question was auctioned by the appellant and received consideration for the same but in relevant documents, the name of Sri Asim is not appearing. Further Ext-24 Ga shows that the R.T.O., Lucknow has written a letter dated 13.4.2006 that necessary papers pertaining to ownership may be forwarded to his office but the appellant has never forwarded the said papers including the auction letter, therefore, we are of the view that the appellant is the legal owner of the vehicle in question on the date of accident as per the ratio laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpa alias Leela vs. Shakuntala (supra).
In view of above discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same is hereby sustained. The appeal is dismissed.
The registry is directed to remit the amount deposited in this court , if any to the concerned Tribunal who will proceed in accordance with the award.
R.P.
Date of Order 22.7.2011