Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.2(30) – ‘Owner’ – Motor vehicle driven in reverse gear hit two persons – One died on the spot, while the other received multiple injuries – Vehicle involved in the accident was registered in the name of First respondent – However, before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal successive transfers of the vehicle was put forth as a defence to the claim – Tribunal held the First respondent liable along with the driver of the vehicle as the registration certificate of the offending vehicle continued to be in his name – Appeal by First respondent before High Court, allowed – Held: The person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act – Thus, in the present case where the registered owner purportedly transferred the vehicle but continued to be reflected in the records as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability– Principle underlying the provisions of s.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– In the present case, admittedly the vehicle was uninsured – Liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon the First respondent– Judgment of High Court is set aside– Motor Vehicles Act,1939– s.2(19)– Interpretation of Statutes. A motor vehicle driven by one ‘R’ in the reverse gear hit one ‘JD’ and her nephew ‘N’. ‘N’ was run over by the rear wheel of the car and died on the spot while, ‘JD’ received multiple injuries. The vehicle involved in the accident was registered in the name of the First respondent. However, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the First respondent claimed that he had sold the vehicle to the Second respondent, who stated that he had sold it to the Third respondent, who in turn claimed to have sold the vehicle to the appellant. The appellant claimed that he had sold the vehicle to one ‘MS’. The Tribunal held the First respondent liable along with the driver of the vehicle. In appeal, High Court foisted the liability to pay compensation on the appellant. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 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. Evidently, Parliament while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 made a specific change by recasting the earlier definition. Section 2(19) of the earlier Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 stipulated that where a person in possession of a motor vehicle is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be the owner and where the motor vehicle was subject to a hire purchase agreement, the person in possession of the vehicle under the agreement would be the owner. The Act of 1988 has provided in the first part of Section 2(30) that the owner would be the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered. Where such a person is a minor the guardian of the minor would be the owner. In relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement would be the owner. The latter part of the definition is in the nature of an exception which applies where the motor vehicle is the subject of a hire purchase agreement or of an agreement of lease or hypothecation. [Para 6][578-F-H; 579-A-B]
1.2 In a situation such as the present where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continued to be reflected in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability. Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), making a departure from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. 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. [Paras 12, 13][585-E-H; 586-C-D]
HDFC Bank Limited v Reshma (2015) 3 SCC 679; Purnya Kala Devi v State of Assam (2014) 14 SCC 142 – distinguished.
Pushpa alias Leela v Shakuntala (2011) 2 SCC 240 : [2011] 1 SCR 334 – relied on.
Mohan Benefit (P) Ltd. v. Kachraji Raymalji (1997) 9 SCC 103; Rajasthan SRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari (1997) 7 SCC 481 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 724;
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi (2008) 1 SCC 414 : [2007] 13 SCR 134 ; Mukesh K. Tripathi v. LIC (2004) 8 SCC 387 : [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 127 ; Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi (2004) 5 SCC
409 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 418 ; State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Assn. (2002) 1 SCC 589 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 474 ; Pandey & Co. Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2007) 1 SCC 467 : [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR
997 ; Rajasthan SRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari (1997)
7 SCC 481 : [1997] 3 Suppl.SCR 724 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya Kumar Samal (1988)
2 TAC 25 (Ori) ; Bhavnagar Municipality v. Bachubhai Arjanbhai 1995 SCC OnLine Guj 167 ; Godavari Finance Co. v. Degala Satyanarayanamma (2008) 5 SCC 107 : [2008] 6 SCR 231 ; T.V. Jose (Dr.) v. Chacko P.M. (2001) 8 SCC 748 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 366 ; U.P. SRTC v. Kulsum (2011) 8 SCC 142 : [2011] 15 SCR 618 ; P. P. Mohammed v. K. Rajappan (2008) 17 SCC 624 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.