Urmila v. Sushma & Ors.

1. By the instant appeal, the appellant assails the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-02 (North) in short 'the Tribunal' rendered in its judgment-award dated 23.08.2017, whereunder, the liability to pay compensation to the motor accident victim (s) inter alia has come to be fixed upon him, being the registered owner of the offending vehicle.

2. Concisely, the facts relevant to the appeal are that as on the date of occurrence of the incident of accident on 11.08.2006, when the accident occurred in which the motor cycle bearing registration no. DL 3S T 9655 in 2019:DHC:1627 short 'the offending vehicle', was involved and in respect whereof, the impugned award has come to be made by the Tribunal, the appellant was continuing to be the registered owner thereof, though, prior to the subject incident, he had sold the offending vehicle to the respondent No.5-Sh.Dipty Singh, who himself was driving it when the accident occurred. The Tribunal, placing reliance upon P.P.Mohammed vs. K.Rajappan and others 2003 ACJ 1595 followed by Pushpa alias Leela and others vs. Shakuntala and others (2011) 2 SCC 240, held that the appellant being the registered owner of the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident, she was liable to the third party on account of the use of such vehicle.

3. Taking note of the ratio of P.P.Mohammed and Pushpa's case (supra) as also the observations made by the Full Bench of this court in Anand Sarup Sharma vs. P.P.Khurana & others AIR 1989 Delhi 88 and a few single bench judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a learned single Judge of this court in MAC Appeal No.524/2008 Sidharth Khetrapal vs. Mohd.Hanif & Ors and other connected matters decided on 14.09.2017, has made categorical observations on the subject, as under: "18. An accident claim case is maintained under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is essentially the law of torts codified for such purposes, the prime regime being represented by the 12th Chapter. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being germane to the issue raised in these appeals, may be quoted to the extent relevant here, as under:- “168. Award of the Claims Tribunal.— (1) On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be”.

19. It is clear from the afore-quoted provision of Section 168 that the claims tribunal, after inquiry into the application for compensation, may grant the award specifying as to the person who is bear the responsibility to pay, such person inclusive of “the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them.” Noticeably, the law does not refer to the registered owner, but simply uses the expression “owner”.

20. The fact that the owner may be a person distinct from the registered owner cannot be denied. In the context of provision contained in Section 31 of the erstwhile Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, also governing the subject of “transfer of ownership”, which was a similarly worded clause as contained in Section 50 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Full Bench of this Court in Anand Sarup Sharma vs. P.P. Khurana & Ors., AIR 1989 Delhi 88, had observed as under:-

21. As observed earlier, the liability on account of damage or injury (including death) caused due to negligent driving of a motor vehicle is essentially a liability in tort. The person at the wheel of the motor vehicles is, generally speaking, the principal tort-feasor. The liability of the owner arises because he is the person who either employed or permitted the driver to be at the wheel of the vehicle at the relevant point of time, such liability being “vicarious”. In this context, further observations of Full Bench of this Court in Anand Sarup Sharma (supra) to the following effect are enlightening:-

22. In Godavari Finance Company vs. Degala Satyanarayanamma & Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 107, the question raised was as to whether the financier in whose name the vehicle stood registered, or the owner, were to be held liable to pay the compensation arising out of an accident. It is in that context that the Supreme Court observed thus:-

of the driver. What is, therefore, essential for passing an award is to find out the liabilities of the persons who are involved in the use of the vehicle or the persons who are vicariously liable. The insurance company becomes a necessary party to such claims as in the event the owner of the vehicle is found to be liable, it would have to reimburse the owner inasmuch as a vehicle is compulsorily insurable so far as a third party is concerned, as contemplated under Section 147 thereof. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the possession or control of a vehicle plays a vital role.”

23. It is noted that the decision in Pushpa @ Leela & Ors. vs. Shakuntala & Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 240 (SC) is later in terms of time vis-àvis the decision in Godavari Finance Company vs. Degala Satyanarayanamma & Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 107 and does not take note of the said previous ruling.

25. The registration of the vehicle in the name of an individual is of import. It generally proceeds on the presumption that the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is the person responsible for its use. This attracts to him the vicarious liability. But then, it being a rebuttable presumption, it cannot be a thumb rule that in all cases the registered owner must be held accountable. If the registered owner can show, by credible evidence, like in the present case, that he had no control over the vehicle or that the vehicle was with someone else, over whom, or use of the vehicle by whom, he had no control, he cannot be held accountable, the liability in such case shifting on to the person who had the control over the vehicle."