Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.2(30), 50 and 177 – Compensation – Appellant, original owner of a car, sold the said vehicle to the first respondent – Vehicle got involved in an accident – Second respondent received injuries – Claim petition by second respondent – Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs.12.47 lakhs and the liability was fastened on the driver and first respondent – High Court modified the award to the extent that the Insurance Company was liable to make compensation to the claimant and the Insurance Company was given recovery rights to recover the same from the appellant-registered owner of the vehicle – On appeal, held: It is settled that merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that such registered owner stands absolved of his liability to a third person – So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person – Thus, High Court was right in its finding that despite the sale of the vehicle, no transfer of ownership, in accordance with s.50 of the Act was effected and the appellant continued to be the owner of the vehicle. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes timelines within which the transferor and the transferee are required to report the factum of transfer. As per Sub-Section 3 of said Section 50, if there be failure to report the fact of transfer, fine could be imposed and an action under Section
177 could thereafter be taken if there is failure to pay the amount of fine. These timelines and obligations are only to facilitate the reporting of the transfer. It is not as if that if an accident occurs within the period prescribed for reporting said transfer, the transferor is absolved of the liability. [Para 5][939-D-E]
2. Chapter XII of the Act deals with Claims Tribunals and as to how applications for compensation are to be preferred and dealt with. While considering such claims, the Claims Tribunal, in case of an accident is required to specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or whether such amount be paid by all or any of them, as the case may be. It is well settled that for the purposes of fixing such liability the concept of ownership has to be understood in terms of specific definition of ‘owner’ as defined in Section 2(30) of the Act. [Para 6][939-E-F]
3. The High Court found that despite the sale of the vehicle, no transfer of ownership, in accordance with Section 50 of the Act was effected and as such the appellant continued to be the owner in terms of definition as incorporated in Section 2(30) of the Act. The High Court was absolutely right in allowing the appeal. The challenge raised by the appellant must fail. [Paras 3 and 9][938-E-F; 941-F]
Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and Others (2018) 9 SCC
1 : [ 2017] 12 SCR 805 ; Pushpa alias Leela and Ors. v. Shakuntala and Ors.(2011) 2 SCC 240 : [2011] 1 SCR 334 – relied on.
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.