P.K. Sarkar, J.
1. This misc. appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the Addl. Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh whereby he allowed compensation of Rs. 96,000 with interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim up to the date of realisation from opposite party No. 1, owner of the vehicle truck bearing No. BHM 1207 which was the subject-matter of the accident.
2. It may be mentioned here that two claim cases bearing No. 8 of 1986 and No. 95 of 1985 arising out of the same accident were filed. Hence both the aforesaid cases were disposed by a common judgment. Claim Case No. 8 of 1986 was filed under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act whereas Claim Case No. 95 of 1985 was filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and in both the cases the parties were the same. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order Md. Moinuddin alias Gural Mohiuddin, the owner of the vehicle in question has filed this appeal.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal may be stated as follows: On 22.9.1985 at about 6 p.m. Shamim Ahmad was sitting along with Gaya Prasad and Ganga Ram. At that time truck No. BHM 1207 which was being driven by Karu Gope, OP 2, rashly and negligently dashed against Shamim Ahmad as a result he received serious injuries. He was removed to CCL Hospital, Barkakhana and from there to Ranchi but he died on the way. The claimants claimed that Shamim Ahmad was the only earning member of their family. The claimants submitted that they are the heirs of the deceased Shamim Ahmad. It was also contended that Shamim Ahmad was tailor by profession and his monthly income was Rs. 1,500. On that basis a sum of Rs. 2,45,000 was claimed as compensation and interim compensation of Rs. 15,000 was claimed under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. Opposite party No. 2, the driver, did not file any written statement. However, OP 1, the owner of the vehicle filed a written statement and contested the case. OP 1 in his written statement has submitted that he was not the owner of the vehicle in question on the date of accident. He had sold the said vehicle on 30.4.1985 to Karu Gope, OP 2 and the vehicle was handed over to him. An agreement paper was executed on the aforesaid fact. Thus on the date of accident Karu Gope was the owner of the vehicle and was having all the rights and responsibilities with regard to the said vehicle. It was also alleged that OP 1 has no knowledge about the accident dated 22.9.1985. This opposite party No. 1 has challenged the order of compensation as exaggerated. In this connection, however, it may be mentioned that OP 1 did not mention the name of the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured.
5. Both the parties adduced evidences and on consideration of those evidences and also the submissions made before the said Claims Tribunal, the impugned order was passed wherein a sum of Rs. 96,000 has been awarded as compensation against OP 1 inclusive of interim compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act with interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident till the date of realisation of the aforesaid amount.
6. Both the parties were heard. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation, firstly, because he had sold the vehicle to OP 2, Karu Gope on 30.4.1985 whereas the occurrence had taken place on 22.9.1985, i.e., much after the aforesaid sale. A paper was also executed to that effect and thus any liability on account of the accident in question will be on the new owner and not on OP 1. Secondly, it is submitted that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the accident occurred on the date of occurrence in the manner as alleged and also that the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently. In this regard learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision in Mehtab Singh v. National Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. 1958-65 ACJ 250 (Punjab), wherein it was held that where motor vehicle was sold away, subsequent to the sale, it cannot be said that the transferor was left with any interest. It was further stated that in the decision in Shantilal Mohanlal v. Aher Bawanji Malde 1985 ACJ 505 (Gujarat), it has been held that the provision of Sale of Goods Act will apply to the sale of motor vehicle and hence the liability of the insurer ceases on transfer of ownership of the vehicle. It is further submitted that in the decision in A.N. Choudhry v. Debahuti Pattnaik 1979 ACJ 455 (Orissa), the Orissa High Court has held that even if the vehicle was not registered in the name of the appellant on the date of accident, he was held liable for compensation because the transaction was complete on payment of the price and delivery of the vehicle. In that view of the matter it is submitted that after sale the liability of the previous owner, i.e., OP 1 ceases and OP 2 steps in his shoes.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents/ opposite parties, contended that the aforesaid decisions are not fully applicable in the circumstances of the instant case. On the other hand, he has placed reliance in a decision in Champalal v. Ramchander AIR 1976 Raj 75, wherein it is observed as follows:
Now Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes registration obligatory before any such motor vehicle could be driven either by the owner thereof or by some person on his behalf. The said section provides that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place for the purpose of carrying passengers or goods unless the vehicle is registered and certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. Section 24 of the said Act provides as to how registration is to be made.
Then Section 31 provides for ;a transfer of ownership of any such vehicle. It follows from the provisions referred to above that registration certificate is an essential requirement before any such motor vehicle can be made use of and that any person in whose favour this certificate of registration is issued would obviously be the owner thereof. In case of any transfer of ownership in respect of that motor vehicle, the procedure contemplated under Section 31 has to be followed and till any such transfer is entered in the certificate of registration, it has to be presumed that the person in whose favour such certificate of registration stands, is the owner.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents also submitted that in the decision in J.C. Chennarayudu v. N. Lakshmiamma 1980 ACJ 189 (AP), it is held that the transferor and not the transferee, was the owner of the vehicle and hence the transferor and insurance company were also liable to pay compensation in the said case. There is nothing to show that the registration was changed in the name of said Kara Gope. One handwritten paper has been produced on behalf of the appellant/OPs and marked as Exh. A and the signature as Exh. B which show that there was an agreement with Karu Yadav to sell the vehicle for a sum of Rs, 44,001 and on 30.4.1985 a sum of Rs. 7,500 only was paid and it was agreed that the rest of the amount will be paid subsequently and then the papers of truck will be transferred in his name. There is nothing to show that the entire money was paid subsequently and the papers were transferred. In this view, these Exhs. A and B are not sufficient to show that the vehicle was transferred in the name of the driver, OP 2. Thus placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, the contention of the appellant in this connection cannot be accepted and the entire responsibility rests on the appellant OP 1.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties and also perused the different decisions cited by the parties. It appears that the facts in the decisions cited by the appellant are not the same as in the instant case. The decision in Mehtab Singh v. National Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. 1958-65 ACJ 250 (Punjab) and other decision in Shantilal Mohanlal v. Aher Bawanji Malde 1985 ACJ 505 (Gujarat), are regarding some other matters. In the earlier case the main point for consideration was whether any insurable interest was left after transfer and in the second decision the subject-matter was also almost the same as above where it was held that the liability of the insurer ceases on the transfer of ownership of the vehicle. Similarly, in the third decision in A.N. Choudhry v. Debahuti Pattnaik 1979 ACJ 455 (Orissa), it was held that on payment of price and delivery of possession of vehicle the transaction was complete.
10. In this case, there is nothing to show that the entire money was paid and accordingly delivery of possession was given. Thus the facts of the cases are different and cannot be relied upon.
11. On the contrary, the decisions cited by the respondents appear to be more convincing and are more akin to the facts of the case. In that view of the matter it cannot be held that the OP 1 ceased the ownership of the vehicle on the date of accident and is not liable to pay any compensation on that account. As regards the fact whether the actual accident took place, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no case was registered for the accident and thus it cannot be observed whether there was any accident at all. Moreover, there is no satisfactory evidence on the point of actual occurrence and the two persons alleged to be sitting with the deceased, were also not examined and in their place some other persons have been examined.
12. Dispute has also been raised on the point of quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the OPs has referred to a decision in Brestu Ram v. Anant Ram 1990 ACJ 333 (HP), wherein it is held that even if no report to the police was made, no adverse inference can be drawn out of this failure. Moreover, it is further submitted that the persons alleged to be sitting with the deceased at the time of occurrence earlier could not be examined but that cannot take away the version of the other persons who have also seen the occurrence. The appellant has examined two witnesses in this case out of whom AW 1 has claimed that he had seen the occurrence. AW 2 also corroborated the statement of AW 1 though he reached there on alarm.
13. The OPs have examined witness on the point of transfer of his vehicle. In that view of the matter the fact of accident cannot be denied. AW 1 has also given the earnings of the deceased as Rs. 1,800 to Rs. 2,000 per month whereas AW 2 has said that deceased was earning Rs. 1,700 to Rs. 2,000 per month. Be that as it may, the court below has considered the evidences of the witnesses and has come to a correct finding. The appellant has failed to show anything for which the impugned order can be interfered.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that there is no satisfactory evidence on the point of transfer of vehicle on payment of full amount. On the other hand, the documents show otherwise. Similarly, it also appears that the deceased died due to accident. It has also been brought on record the monthly income of the deceased and on the basis of the same the court below has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 96,000 to the claimants. The provisions of the Claims Tribunal are mainly to afford justice to the heirs of the deceased so that they may maintain themselves and thus, like other cases, the claimants cannot be asked to strictly prove the fact.
15. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.