S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1076/2004 Smt. Chouthi and ors. Vs. Amar Singh and ors. with S.B.Civil Cross Objection No.84/2009 Smt. Chouthi & others. Vs. Amar Singh & ors. Dated : 26.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Virendra Agarwal, for the appellant. Mrs. Suman Sharma for the respondents. *** Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 17th March, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bandikui, District Dausa whereby the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- in favour of the applicants-claimants and against respondent-non-claimant Nos.2 and 3. The appellants are not satisfied with the amount of compensation, as such they have implored to enhance the same and further prayed that all the respondents -non- claimant Nos.1 to 3 should be held liable to pay the compensation under the award. 2. In this case, an unfortunate accident occurred on 2nd June, 2002, at 6.00 PM when Jagan Lal was coming on his bicycle from Mahua to his village Virana carrying grossary articles thereon. When he reached near the house of Hari Meena; one Tractor bearing registration No.RRA- 5913 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, suddenly came on the wrong side and dashed against the bicycle of Jagan Lal, resulting into his instant death on the spot. -2- 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed upon the prayer with regard to enhancement of amount of compensation. He simply canvassed that the liability to pay the amount of compensation should be fastened on all the three respondent Nos.1 to 3, severally and jointly, to which learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not object. 4. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the Tractor was registered in the name of respondent No.1-Amar Singh. He is said to have sold to respondent No.2-Sita Ram. As per the information furnished by Sita Ram, respondent No.3 Pappu Ram was the driver of the Tractor at the time of accident. Since respondent No.1 Amar Singh had sold the Tractor to respondent No.2-Sita Ram, hence, the learned Tribunal fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation only on respondent Nos.2 and 3 and absolved respondent No.1 from his liability to pay the compensation. The approach of the learned Tribunal is not found to be legally correct. The word “owner” has been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 2 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the term owner as follows: -3- “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. 5. Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid definition that the owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. The offending Tractor was registered in the name of respondent No.1-Amar Singh on the date of accident albeit, he had sold the same to respondent No.2-Sita Ram, but, since respondent No.1 continues to be registered owner of the offending Tractor on the fateful day, he could not be absolved from his liability to pay the amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 & 3 filed the cross objections which were taken on record on 21st october, 2009. She contended that on the date of accident, respondent No.1 Amar Singh was the registered owner of the offending Tractor, thus, only he was liable to pay the compensation and respondent Nos.2 & 3 deserve to be exonerated from their liability. 7. It is not disputed that the offending Tractor was recovered from the possession of the respondent No.2. It is -4- he, who disclosed the fact that respondent No.3 Pappu Ram was in his employment and driving the Tractor when the accident of the instant case occurred. Neither the Tribunal nor this Court is required to adjudicate the question of ownership of the offending Tractor. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.1 continues to be the registered owner of the Tractor on the date of accident and the Tractor was recovered from the possession of respondent No.2 who had purchased the same from respondent No.1 Pappu Ram was driving the Tractor, hence, all the three respondent Nos.1 to 3, are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned judgment is modified to the following effect: “That the appellants-claimants are held entitled to claim Rs.2,16,000/- as compensation from respondent non-claimant Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. The impugned award stands modified as indicated hereinabove. -5- 9. The cross objections filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 stand disposed of accordingly. 10. No order as to costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg