FAO No.1084 of 2007(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.1084 of 2007 (O&M) Decided on : October 06, 2009 Babu Ram Jindal ... Appellant VERSUS Joginder Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Amit Dhawan, Advocate for Mr.Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondents No.3 and 4 proceeded ex-parte. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Vide award dated 6.2.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (herein referred as the Tribunal), the claimant Kamlesh Kumari (respondents No.2 in the instant appeal) was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,20,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, on account of the death of Shashi Singh, son of respondents No.1 and 2, aged about 20 years, doing the work of repair and manufacturing of steel goods, in a motor vehicle accident. On 9.4.2003, the deceased was on his way to his village Gag on a scooter, when he met with an accident on account of the rash and FAO No.1084 of 2007(O&M) [ 2 ] negligent driving of Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.CH01X-3146, driven by respondent No.4, regarding which FIR No.35 dated 9.4.2003 under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Anandpur Sahib. The deceased was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. The claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs. The offending vehicle was not insured, so the appellant Babu Ram Jindal (herein referred as the appellant) as well as respondents No.3 and 4 contested the claim petition, wherein, they denied all the allegations and submitted that no such accident took place. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether respondent No.3 caused the death of Shashi by his rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo No.CH01X-3146 on 9.4.2003 at about 11 AM near village Dasgarian? OPP 2. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged by respondents No.1 and 3 in para No.2 of the written statement? OPR 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? OPP 4. Relief.” Both the parties led evidence. Joginder Singh, one of the claimants himself appeared in the witness box as PW1 and examined Mujhail Singh as PW2. He also tendered into evidence copy of the FIR Ex.P1 and copy of the post mortem report Ex.P2. In rebuttal, the appellant FAO No.1084 of 2007(O&M) [ 3 ] Babu Ram Jindal appeared as RW1 and examined S.L.Kundra (RW2) and Pawan Kumar (RW3). Ultimately, the claim petition was accepted qua respondent No.2 only. Arguments heard. Record perused. The main plank of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant is that the evidence led by the claimants does not establish if respondent No.4 was rash or negligent in driving the offending vehicle. Having deliberated over the contention, it sans merit. Mujhail Singh (PW2), an eye-witness put in appearance and substantiated the allegations, ,while reiterating that it was respondent No.4, who was rash and negligent in driving the Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.CH01X-3146. He has depicted time, place and the manner of the occurrence in all minute details, which remain unshattered despite long cross-examination over him. Nothing could be elicited from him to defy his trustworthiness. Though, Mujhail Singh is somewhat related to the accident, but that too is flimsy ground to discard his testimony. This witness has duly identified respondent No.4, being the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time. The ocular version made by the aforesaid witness stands corroborated by the FIR, lodged by him. There is no challenge to the version of the claimants that Shashi died on account of the injuries received in the motor vehicle accident. The copy of the post mortem report (Ex.P2) also strengthens that he died on account of the motor vehicle accident. No evidence to the contrary was led. The liability could safely be fastened upon the appellant. As regards the challenge made by the appellant with regard to FAO No.1084 of 2007(O&M) [ 4 ] the earning of the deceased, he was 26 years old and used to repair and manufacture the trunks, boxes and ulmirahs (steel goods), from where inference could be drawn that he was a skilled labour. Thus, the Tribunal rightly concluded that his income could not be less than Rs.3500/- per month. The deceased was likely to be married in a year or so. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly determined the dependency of the mother at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month i.e. Rs.18000/- per annum. While placing reliance over the judgment in case Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and others , 2006(2) PLR Vol.CXLIII, 329, the Tribunal while taking into consideration the age of the parents, applied the multiplier of 12, which cannot be said to be unreasonable. The last point paused by the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was not the owner of the offending vehicle on the day of the accident, but it was Mustaq Ali, who was the its registered owner. Though, Mustaq Ali was impleaded as party-respondent in the petition, but the claim petition was got dismissed as withdrawn against him, therefore, on transfer of the vehicle by the appellant in favour of Mustaq Ali by way of affidavit, he ceased to be owner and is not liable for paying the compensation to the claimant. Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has urged that the appellant has failed to lead cogent satisfactory evidence in order to prove that the ownership of the offending vehicle was transferred in favour of Mustaq Ali. No such evidence has been brought on record in order to establish if such documents were required for transfer of the vehicle had been prepared in favour of Mustaq Ali, therefore, this Court is unable to accept this contention. Notwithstanding the fact that any affidavit was given by the FAO No.1084 of 2007(O&M) [ 5 ] appellant in favour of Mustaq Ali or vice-versa, but it was not sufficient to prove that Babu Ram ceased to be the registered owner. No document is shown to prove that the offending vehicle was entered in the name of Mustaq Ali. It is only the registered owner of the vehicle, who is liable to pay the compensation. In this context, reliance could be placed on the decision of the Apex Court in case Dr.T.V.Jose vs. Chacko P.M, and others, 2001 ACJ 2059, wherein, it was held as under:- “We agree with Mr.Iyer that the High Court was not right in holding that the appellant continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However, the appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O as owner. The appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Roy Thomas in these appeals. Roy Thomas was not a party either before the MACT or the High Court. In these appeals, we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the appellant and Roy Thomas. It will be for the appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Roy Thomas if in law, he is entitled to do so.” While placing reliance on Dr.T.V.Jose's case (supra), it could safely be observed that where the person continued to be the registered FAO No.1084 of 2007(O&M) [ 6 ] owner despite the transfer of transfer consideration and delivery of vehicle, he would still continue to remain liable to the third parties as his name continued in the records of the Registering Authority as owner. This fact could not be denied by the appellant that he remained registered owner and no entry could be made in the Registration Book regarding transfer of ownership. As such, the contention raised by the appellant is turned down and he being the registered owner, is certainly liable to pay the compensation along with the driver of the offending vehicle. At the end, counsel for the appellant while placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in case Vipin Kumar Sharma vs. Jagwant Kaur and others, 2007 ACJ 1249 contended that owner as defined in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would mean a person in whose name the vehicle stands registered, yet since he had transferred the vehicle, he could take recourse of the proceedings against the transferee. Having scrutinized the contention, this Court in the case of Vipin Kumar Sharma (supra) while holding the liability of the registered owner, observed as under:- “In view of the above, it cannot be said that the appellant was not liable to pay compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. Once, it is found that the appellant cannot escape his liability to pay compensation, there is no merit in this appeal. However, it shall be open to the appellant to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the vendee.” FAO No.1084 of 2007(O&M) [ 7 ] No other argument has been raised. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is granted liberty to take recourse under the law, against alleged vendee Mustaq Ali. October 06, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE