FAO No.2908 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2908 of 1999 Date of Decision.24.12.2010 Anil Yadav sonof Shri K.D. Yadav ......Appellant Versus Bal Kishan son of Avtar Singh and another ......Respondents 2. FAO No.2909 of 1999 Gurnam Kaur wife of Resham Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Bal Kishan son of Avtar Singh and another ......Respondents Present: Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and therefore, taken up together. FAO No.2909 of 1999 is for damages to the vehicle, which was involved in the accident against the Haryana Roadways. The petition was prosecuted through power of attorney on the ground that he had transferred the vehicle by delivery but since the ownership had not been carried out under the Motor Vehicles and he continued to be the registered owner, the claim petition had been FAO No.2908 of 1999 -2- presented by the registered owner through the power of attorney. It is now represented by the counsel that the power of attorney has himself died and in that case it must only be taken that the Anil Yadav himself is prosecuting the case. Learned counsel states that she has been instructed to appear on behalf of the principal and seeks for permission of the Court to file the power of attorney. The same be filed in the registry. 2. The claim petition for damages to the vehicle was dismissed although evidence had been adduced to the effect that there had been repairs and replacement carried out to the tune of Rs.61,439.50 evidenced through Ex.P3 to P10. The Tribunal held that if the transfer of vehicle had not been registered then the prosecution of the case through the power of attorney was not tenable. I cannot accede to such a reasoning, for the ownership in vehicle is transferred by delivery and registration of such ownership under the Motor Vehicles Act is for different purpose. The procedure prescribed under Section 50 itself is not a document of transfer but the transfer is effected by delivery under Section 19 of the Sales of Goods Act. This distinction has been obtained through a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasantha Vishwanathan and others Vs. V.K. Elayalwara nd others 2001(8) SCC 133. 3. The claim includes also the damages caused by the non-user of the vehicle for the period when it was in the garage. While a claim before the Tribunal is possible for actual damages caused to the vehicle, any resultant damages by non-user cannot be a matter of enforcement through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. This aspect FAO No.2908 of 1999 -3- has been considered by various Courts and it has been held that such claims of damages are not possible. While dealing with the case under Section 119(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. K.P. Saradamma AIR 1989 Ker.23, the Kerala High Court reasoned that damages to property accruing under the proviso in the said Section takes within its ambit only the direct damage to a property. If there is any claim for damages suffered by the owner of the motor vehicle, which was involved in the accident apart from the claim for damages to the vehicle, it will have to only avail a suit before a Civil Court since the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal itself has no jurisdiction to consider such a claim. The same view had also been taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kishori Vs. Chairman, Tribal Services Co-op Society Ltd. 1996 Acc CJ 562. 4. The compensation, however, would be possible only with reference to the actual damages caused and I will take the amount of Rs.61,439.50 as established through documents which had been filed in Court. The award shall, therefore, be in favour of the claimants- appellants for Rs.61,439.50 with interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. In view of subsequent event, it is stated that the amount awarded shall be in the name of Anil Yadav but to be held in trust for the legal representatives of the purchaser who was cited as a power of attorney and who has died during the pendency of the proceedings. 5. In FAO No.2908 of 1999, it is represented by the appellants that both the parents has died and only the unmarried sister was alive at the time of presentation of the petition to prosecute the case. The FAO No.2908 of 1999 -4- appeal is for enhancement of claim for death of a 23 years old bachelor, who was said to be a driver and who was earning Rs.2500/- per month. The Tribunal made a deduction of 1/3rd and applied a multiplier of 8. The appropriate multiplier for his age shall be 11 having regard to the age of the parents and I would, therefore, take the compensation payable at Rs.2,20,000/-. I will add another Rs.4500/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses and take the amount of compensation payable at Rs.2,24,500/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 6. Since the parents have died, the amount shall survive to the sister Harjeet Kaur. Both the appeals are allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 24, 2010 Pankaj*