HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.17 of 2006 16-07-2010 Between: The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its General Manager, Bangalore. ………Appellant And P.Venkata Reddy ………Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.17 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity ‘KSRTC), Bangalore, against the award in O.P.No.675 of 1996, dated 14-09-2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation towards damage caused to the Jeep bearing Regn. No.AHS-8732 of the respondent herein (claimant). 2. The claim was made on the basis that on 26-02-1995, the claimant was driving the Jeep from Krishna to Sangambanda. While the vehicle was proceeding near Maganoor village on Raichur to Mahabubnagar road, the bus of the appellant bearing Regn. No.KA- 34/F-57, coming into opposite direction rashly and negligently, hit the Jeep, as a result of which, the vehicle was damaged. The damage was surveyed by a Surveyor on 28-02-1995 and as per the report of the surveyor, the damage was extensive to the extent of Rs.1.00 lakh. The claimant, therefore, sought for the compensation. 3. The appellant-Corporation resisted the claim, inter alia, on the ground that the claimant is not the owner of the vehicle and as such no compensation can be paid to him. 4. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined P.Sreenivasa Rao, Private Surveyor, as P.W.2 and Syed Zahid Hussain, registered owner of the vehicle, as P.W.3. Documents Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked on his behalf. The respondent did not adduce any documentary evidence nor examined any witness. 5. The Tribunal formulated the issues whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus of the appellant-Corporation and whether it resulted in causing damages to the Jeep and whether the claimant was entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount. 6. On the basis of the oral evidence of P.W.3, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the claimant is the owner of the vehicle. On the issue relating to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Contending that the liability is wrongly fastened to the appellant-Corporation, this appeal is filed. 7. Notice was served on the respondent. The respondent despite service of notice has remained ex parte in this appeal. 8. The main points for determination in this appeal are; 1) Whether the respondent is the owner of the Jeep bearing Regn. No.AHS-8732; and 2) If so, whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 9. Point No.1-: Although it is the claim of the claimant that he is the owner –cum- driver of the jeep and on that basis he filed the claim petition, no documentary evidence was filed. Ex.A-8 is the photo copy of the Registration Certificate Book. A perusal of the said document shows that after a series of transfers, the vehicle was finally transferred in the name of Syed Zahid Hussain, S/o.Syed Hussain (P.W.3) vide orders C.No.2986/B1/HS/91, dated 04-11-1991 on the file of the Registering Authority, R.T.A., South Zone, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. The name of the claimant is not found in the Registration Certificate. Therefore, the claimant is not the registered owner of the vehicle. 10. In order to overcome the objection, the claimant examined the said Zahid Hussain whose name finds place in Ex.A-8, as P.W.3. He deposed that the claimant purchased the vehicle from him prior to the accident and took possession of the same and the relevant documents. But the ownership of the said vehicle was not transferred officially in his name. In the cross-examination, he stated that he sold the vehicle in the year 1995. But he did not specify on which date the vehicle was allegedly sold to the claimant. He admitted that the claimant did not obtain his signature on any sale certificate or on the prescribed formats required for transfer of the vehicle. 11. The claimant although claimed ownership did not take plea in his claim petition that he purchased the vehicle from P.W.3 and the transfer of ownership was in process. He also did not speak to this fact in his evidence. In the absence of a plea by the claimant himself and in the light of the admission of P.W.3 in his cross-examination, it is difficult to accept that the vehicle was sold to the claimant and that he became the owner of the vehicle. It is apparent that P.W.3 was pressed into service as an afterthought. 12. Although P.W.3 stated that he sold the vehicle to the claimant, no proof was submitted to support his version. On the other hand, he admitted in his cross-examination that he did not obtain signatures on any sale certificate or on the prescribed format required for transfer of the vehicle. 13. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, where the ownership of any motor vehicle is transferred, such transfer should be reported within fourteen days in the prescribed manner to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is being effected along with a copy of the report to the transferee and the transferee should within 30 days of the transfer, report the same to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle has been kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority in the prescribed manner, in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration. There is no evidence on record to show that such intimation was given either by the transferer (P.W.3) or transferee (claimant) to the concerned authority. 14. As noticed earlier, P.W.3 did not indicate on which date actually the vehicle was sold to the claimant. It is evident that the claimant was pursuing to claim the compensation without any right. It is therefore be held that the O.P. filed by him is incompetent and not maintainable. Consequently, it has to be held that the claimant is not entitled for compensation. The point No.1 is answered accordingly. 15. Point No.2:- In the light of the finding in respect of Point No.1, it is not necessary to consider the issue on this point. 16. The O.P. is therefore held to be not maintainable and consequently the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. In this view of the matter, the award in O.P.No.675 of 1996, dated 14-09- 2005, is set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 16th July 2010 KVR