Judgment:
ORDER
S.K. Gangele, J.
1. These three appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common award dated 18-10-2005, passed in Claim Cases No. 84/05, 101/05 and 102/2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri. Because all the appeals have been filed against the same award and arisen out of the same accident, hence, the appeals have been heard together finally and disposed of by this common order.
2. On 2-12-2004, deceased Chandan Singh and other labourers had been coming in a tractor bearing registration No. M.P. 33M/0295 from a quarry lease. They had been sitting in a trolley attached to the aforesaid tractor. In the tractor trolley, stones were transported. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, it became turtle and the trolley attached to the tractor also turned down. Due to the aforesaid accident, labourer, who had been sitting in the trolley, namely, Chandan Singh, Surendra Singh and Shivlal died on the spot. The report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station, Kotwali, District Shivpuri and an offence, vide Crime No. 665/05, was registered against the driver of the tractor. Thereafter, the dependents of all the three deceased, Chandan Singh, Surendra Singh and Shivlal, filed claims applications before the Claims Tribunal for compensation.
3. The claimants-dependents of deceased Chandan Singh filed claim application before the Claims Tribunal, which was registered as Claim Case No. 84/05, claiming total compensation of Rs. 29,91,000/-. Similarly, the claimants-dependents, who are father and mother of deceased Surendra Singh in Claim Case No. 101/05 claimed compensation of Rs. 60,00,000/- and the claimants-dependents of deceased Shivlal in Claim Case No. 102/05 claimed compensation of Rs. 3,23,300/-. In all the three aforesaid claim cases, appellant Rameshchand was added as a party being the owner of the tractor.
4. The claimants pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The present appellant disputed his liability on the ground that he had already sold the vehicle in favour of one Santosh Singh. The Claims Tribunal after appreciation of evidence has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The appellant being the owner of the tractor, is liable for payment of compensation and awarded compensation in favour of the claimants.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant in all the appeals has submitted that the present appellant Rameshchand had already sold the tractor prior to the accident, hence, he is not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has wrongly fixed the liability of appellant to pay compensation. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on the following judgments:
(i) Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai and Ors 1980 ACJ 126
(ii) Panna Lai v. Shri Chand Mai and Ors. 1980 ACJ 233
(iii) Smt. BaijbaiJain and Anr. v. Gaurabai and Ors. M.A. No. 166/94, decided on 22-3-2005, Gwalior Bench;
(iv) Mathew Thankachan v. V.G. Manoharan and Ors. : 1999 ACJ 275
(v) Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Ors. : 2003 ACJ 12
(vi) Hamid Khan v. Smt. Guddibai 2001 (II) MPWN 179.
6. Contrary to this, learned Counsel for the respondents claimants in all the three appeals has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability of payment of compensation of the present appellant. The tractor was of the ownership of the present appellant at the relevant time. However, in order to escape the liability, he prepared a forged papers. Learned Counsel further submitted that looking to the evidence on record of the case, proper compensation has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal although the respondents-claimants have not filed any cross-objection but this Court can enhance the compensation. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on the following judgments:
(i) Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 748 and
(ii) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. M. Ramadevi and Ors. : (2008) 3 SCC 379.
7. In all the three cases, claimants who arc dependents have pleaded that the deceased were labourers. They had been working over the tractor bearing registration No. M.P. 33M/0295, which was owned by the present appellant. They had been sitting in the trolley attached with the tractor. The tractor had been carrying stones and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, it became turtle and the trolley attached to the tractor also turned down. The report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station, Kotwali, District Shivpuri on 2-12-2004. It is mentioned in the report that on 1-12-2004, a tractor of Mr. Rameshchand Sharma, was met with an accident. The tractor had been used for transporting stones from a quarry and it was attached with a trolley and the deceased, who were labourers, had been travelling in the trolley and due to the aforesaid accident, the deceased were died. Copy of the Report has been filed as Exh. P-2 in Claim Case No. 84/05. On the basis of the aforesaid report, an offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC has been registered against Ballu Kushwah, the driver of the tractor. Copy of the seizure memo has been filed as Exh. P-5. The Police also seized the tractor along with trolley. It is mentioned in the seizure memo that in the tractor, the number was not mentioned, hence, the police mentioned the Chcsis Number.
8. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant, Rambcti, wife of deceased Chandan Singh in Claim Case No. 84/05, stated that her husband had been working as labourer and he used to do the work of Bandhani. He was coming on a tractor bearing registration No. M.P. 33M/0295 from a mining stone quarry to Shivpuri. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, the tractor became turtle and the trolley attached to the tractor also turned down and in the aforesaid accident, her husband died on the spot. Her husband used to earn near about Rs. 6000/- per month. Another witness Mr. Balveer Singh Gurjar, who was examined as claimant witness, stated the same facts. He further stated that Chandan Singh used to do the work of Bandhani.
9. Before the Claims Tribunal, one Santosh Singh Kushwah, who was added as non-applicant No. 3 also examined. He also filed his written statement before the Claims Tribunal. In his evidence he stated that he purchased the tractor on 3-9-2005 from Rameshchand and he also received the aforesaid tractor in Supurdgi from Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Shivpuri on 31-12-2004. He further admitted the fact that he filed an application for taking the vehicle on Supurdginama before the CJM Shivpuri, as Exh. D-1 and the affidavit of Rameshchand Sharma, thereafter, the tractor was given in Supurdgi to him. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he is illiterate. He could not say that what had been written in the affidavit of Mr. Rameshchand Sharma. He used to work as labourer and earlier he had been working as labourer to one Mr. Badaudi Rathore. He had no land in his own name. He further stated that he had no money to submit an application for transferring the vehicle in his name before the RTO, hence, he could not submit any application to the RTO Office. He purchased the tractor before one year. He further admitted the fact that he had been working as labourer. A suggestion was given to him by the Counsel in his cross-examination that he was working as labourer to Mr. Rameshchand Sharma but he denied the aforesaid suggestion and said that it is wrong to say that he had been working to Mr. Rameshchand Sharma. He further denied the fact that what was written in Form Nos. 29 and 30.
10. The present appellant also tendered his evidence before the Tribunal. In his evidence, he stated that he was the owner of the tractor bearing registration No. M.P. 33M/0295. He had sold the aforesaid tractor on 3-9-2004 to Mr. Santosh Singh Kushwah and in his cross-examination, he denied the fact that he used the tractor for the purpose of transporting stones from Majera Stone Quarry. He admitted the fact that he did not submit any application to the RTO Office with regard to selling of the tractor. He denied the fact that Santosh Singh had been working as labourer with him. He further denied the fact that Ballu Kushwah was his driver. But admitted the fact that at the relevant time, his name was registered in the RTO Office as owner.
11. Apart from the statements of all the witnesses, Santosh Singh Kushwah in his written statement before the Claims Tribunal admitted the fact that he purchased the tractor. The driver has not filed any separate written statement but he has filed his written statement along with present appellant Rameshchand Sharma.
12. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that Santosh Singh was a labourer as admitted by him in his evidence. He had no money to pay even the fees for submitting an application to the RTO for transferring the tractor in his name. Although, it is said that the tractor was purchased by him on 3-9-2004 but no receipt or copy of the sale memo has been filed by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal to substantiate the fact that the tractor was sold by the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that the tractor was registered in the name of Santosh Singh on 7-1-2005 and the accident occurred on 2-12-2004. Mr. K.C. Jain, District Transport Officer, Shivpuri in his evidence in Claim Case No. 84/05 stated that on 4-10-1999, the tractor bearing registration No. M.P. 33M/0295 was registered in the name of Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma s/o Ramjilal Sharma. Subsequently, it was registered in the name of Santosh Singh Kushwah on 7-1-2005. The Form Nos. 29 and 30 was given to the Office. He further stated that it is wrong to say that on 3-9-2004, Rameshchand Sharma has handed over the Form No. 29 (C) to Santosh Singh Kushwah.
13. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes procedure for transfer of ownership with regard to motor vehicle which is as under:
50. Transfer of ownership.--(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,--
(a) the transferor shall,--
(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report of the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and
(ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty-five days of the transfer, forwarded to the Registering Authority referred to in Sub-clause(i)-
(A) the no objection certificate obtained under Section 48; or
(B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,--
(I) the receipt obtained under Sub-section (2) of Section 48; or
(II) the postal acknowledgment received by the transferee if he has sent an application in his behalf by registered post acknowledgment due to the Registering Authority referred to in Section 48, together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted;
(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate or registration to that Registering Authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate or registration.
(2) Where--
(a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, or
(b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public auction conducted by, or on behalf of, Government,
the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle or, as the case may be, who has purchased or acquired the motor vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the Registering Authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, in such manner, accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the Registering Authority the fact of transfer within the period specified in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), as the case may be, or if the person who is required to make an application under Sub-section (2) (hereafter in this section referred to as the other person) fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the Registering Authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the transferor or the transferee, or the other person, as the case may be, to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under Section 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under Sub-section (5).'
14. The State Government has also framed rules named as the 'M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994'. Rule 54 of the Rules, 1994 prescribes procedure with regard to transfer of vehicle which is as under:
54. LokfeRo ds vUrj.k dh izKkiuk-& 1 dsfUnz; fu;eksa ds v/khu fofgr iz:iksa es LokfeRo ds vUrj.k ls lacaf/kr izKkiu izkIr gksus ij jftLVhdj.k izkf/kdkjh ;ku ds vUrj.k dh ;FkkFkZrk fu/kkZfjr djus ds fy, ,slh ;qfDr;qDr tkap djus ds i'pkr~] tks og Bhd le>s rFkk ;ku dk izR;{k fujh{k.k djus ds i'pkr~] tks og Bhd le>s rFkk ;ku dk izR;{k fujh{k.k djus ds i'pkr~ jftLVhdj.k izek.ki= ij LokfeRo dk vUrj.k djsxkA
(2) vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 50 dh mi/kkjk 7 ds v/khu ewy jftLVhdj.k izkf/kdkjh rFkk vUrj.k dks LokfeRo ds vUrj.k dh lalwpuk iz:i ,e-ih-,e-Ogh-vkj- 32 lh-vkj-Vh-vkbZ- esa nh tk;sxhA
(3) /kkjk 50 dh mi/kkjk 3 ds iz;kstuks ds fy, eksVj ;ku ds LokfeRo vUrj.k ds rF; dh fjiksZV djus esa vUrjd ;k vUrfjrh ;k mDr /kkjk dh mi/kkjk 2 esa fufnZ'V vU; O;fDr dh vksj ls gq, foyac dh dkykof/k dks /;ku j[krs gq, jftLVhdj.k izkf/kdkjh ekeys dh ifjfLFkr;ksa ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;FkkfLFkfr vUrjd ;k vUrfjrh ;k vU; O;fDr O;fDr ls ;g vis{kk dj ldsxk fd vUrjd ;k vUrfjrh ;k vU; O;fDr ls ;g vis{kk dj ldsxk fd vUrjd ;k vUrfjrh ds fo:) /kkjk 177 ds v/khu tks dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gS mlds cnys esa fuEufyf[kr jde dk lank; djsa&
d :i;s 50@& ;fn foyEc rhl fnu ls vf/kd dk u gks] ;kA
[k :i;s 100@& ;fn foyEc rhl fnu ls vf/kd dk gksA
15. From the above facts of the case, it is clear that the theory developed by the present appellant with regard to change of ownership of the vehicle in favour of Santosh Singh Kushwah is afterthought and it has deliberately and cleverly done by the appellant to escape from the liability for payment of compensation. In the FIR (Exh. P-2), it has clearly been mentioned that the tractor was of the ownership of Rameshchand. The accident occurred on 2-12-2004. It is said that the tractor was sold on 30-9-2004, however, there is no sale memo and only an affidavit of Santosh Singh Kushwah has been filed that he purchased the tractor. He himself admitted in his evidence that he was working as a labourer. He had no means even to submit an application for transfer of the ownership before the RTO. Even though, the appellant denied the fact that Santosh Singh was working with the appellant as a labourer but from the facts of the case, this Court has come to the conclusion that Santosh Singh had been working as a labourer with the appellant and in order to escape the liability for payment of compensation the appellant submitted an application for taking the tractor on Supurdginama on behalf of Santosh Singh Kushwah. Actually, Santosh Singh is a proxy of the appellant himself. It is further clear from the facts that the appellant and driver of the tractor both have filed the same written statement before the Claims Tribunal.
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and Ors. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 748 has held as under with regard to liability for payment of compensation of a owner whose name has been recorded as owner in the record of the RTO to a third party:
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 RTO. 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 RTO as the owner. The appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining R in the present appeals. R was not a party either before the Accidents Claims Tribunal or the High Court. Therefore, in the present appeals, the Supreme Court would not go into the question aiinterse liability between the appellant and R.
Looking to the above facts of the case, in my opinion, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the present appellant is liable for payment of compensation being the owner of the tractor.
17. With regard to quantum of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, after going through the award, in my opinion, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded a proper compensation. Although, no cross-objection has been filed by the claimants in all the appeals for enhancement of compensation, however, this Court in suo motu can enhance the compensation. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. M. Ramadevi and Ors. reported in : (2008) 3 SCC 379 has held as under with regard to power of the High Court to award a just compensation, hence, the Court in appeal filed by the non-applicants, even the claimants have not filed any cross-objection, can award a proper compensation and enhance the compensation:
8. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that there is no embargo on the Tribunal or the High Court awarding compensation exceeding the amount claimed. It was also submitted that the interest was reduced to 9% from 12% as fixed by the Tribunal. It was, therefore, submitted that there was no infirmity in the High Court's order.
9. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh reported in : (2003) 2 SCC 274 Para 21 it was held as follows (SCC p. 281):
21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the M.V. Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under Sub-section (4) of Section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under Sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the M.V. Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the Court may permit amendment to the claim petition.
18. In Claim Case No. 84/2005 (M.A. No. 132/06), the claimants are wife, father, mother, brother and sister of deceased Chandan Singh. The sister of deceased Chandan Singh is 10 years and brother is 12 years. The father and mother are 45 and 42 years. The wife of the deceased Chandan Singh has clearly stated that her husband was the only earning member of the family and he used to earn Rs. 200/- per day. The same facts have been stated by other witnesses also. Looking to the nature of the work of the deceased and the facts on the record, the income of the deceased could be fixed at Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per year. Because the claimants are wife, father, mother, brother and sister, hence, the dependency of 2/3rd has to be calculated. Consequently, the loss of income to the claimants on account of death of deceased Chanda Singh comes to (Rs. 36,000 x 2/3) = Rs. 24,000/- per year. It has been mentioned that the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident and he was issueless. The age of the wife of the deceased has been mentioned as 20 years. As per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 17 is to be applicable upto to the age group of 20-25 years. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the multiplier of 17 will be applicable in Claim Case No. 84/2005. Hence, the total loss of income comes to (Rs. 24,000 x 17) = Rs. 4,08,000/-. The claimants are also entitled another Rs. 15,000/- on other heads. Hence, the claimants are entitled the total compensation of (Rs. 4,08,000 + 15,000) = Rs. 4,23,000/- (Rupees Four lacs twenty three thousands only).
19. With regard to M.A. No. 130/06 (Claim Case No. 102/05), claimants are wife, sons and daughter of deceased Shivlal Jata v. Smt. Shrivati, wife of deceased Shivlal in her evidence stated that her husband had been working as agricultural labourer. He was getting Rs. 6,000/- per month as his salary. The father of the deceased Chhaku also stated that his son Shivlal had been earning Rs. 4000-5000/- per month. Looking to the aforesaid facts and the fact that the deceased was working as labourer, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to fix the income of the deceased Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per year. The age of the deceased has been mentioned as 35 years. The father of the deceased also mentioned his age as 35 years. As per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, upto to the age group of 35-40, the multiplier of 16 is applicable. Hence, in the present case, the multiplier of 16 would be applicable. Because the claimants are wife, sons and daughter hence, loss of income to the claimants on account of death of deceased Shivlal comes to (Rs. 36,000 x 2/3) = Rs. 24,000/- per year. After applying the multiplier of 16, the total loss of income comes to (Rs. 24,000 x 16) = Rs. 3,84,000/-. The claimants are also entitled another Rs. 15,000/- on other heads. Hence, the claimants are entitled the total compensation of (Rs. 3,84,000 + 15,000) = Rs. 3,99,000/- (Rupees Three lacs ninety nine thousands only).
20. With regard to M.A. No. 133/06 (Claim Case No. 101/05), claimants are father and mother of the deceased Surendra Singh. The mother of the deceased in her evidence stated that her son Surendra had been working as a labourer. He was getting Rs. 6,000/- per month. Looking to the aforesaid facts and the fact that the deceased was working as a labourer, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to fix the income of the deceased Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per year. The age of the deceased has been mentioned as 22 years and he was unmarried. Because the claimants are mother and father of the deceased, hence, the dependency comes to 50% as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fakeerappa and Anr. v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and Ors. reported in : 2004 ACJ 184 Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Sarojamma and Anr. reported in 2008 (2) TAC 756 (SC); Kamla Sharma and Anr. v. Mis. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in MACD 2008 (2) 420; Syed Basheer Ahamed and Ors. v. Mohd. Jameel and Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 18001 of 2006] and in the case of Ramkishore Dixit and Ors. v. Ramcharan and Ors. Misc. Appeal No. 551/99, decided on 7-2-2006. The age of the mother has been mentioned as 42 years. As per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, upto to the age group of 42-45, the multiplier of 15 is applicable. Hence, in the present case, the multiplier of 15 would be applicable. Because the claimants are father and mother and deceased was unmarried, hence, loss of income to the claimants on account of death of deceased Surendra comes to Rs. 18,000/- per year. After applying the multiplier of 15, the total loss of income comes to (Rs. 18,000 x 15) = Rs. 2,70,000/-. The claimants are also entitled another Rs. 15,000/- on other heads. Hence, the claimants are entitled the total compensation of (Rs. 2,70,000 + 15,000) = Rs. 2,85,000/- (Rupees Two lacs eighty five thousands only).
21. Consequently, all the three appeals, i.e., M.A. No. 130/06, M.A. No. 132/06 and M.A. No. 133/06 are hereby dismissed. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Cases No. 84/05,101/05 and 102/05 are hereby enhanced. Impugned awards are modified to the extent that in M.A. No. 132/06 (Claim Case No. 84/05), the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 4,23,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,78,000/-. Hence, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of (Rs. 4,23,000 -1,78,000) = Rs. 2,45,000/- (Rupees Two lacs forty five thousands only). 50% of the enhanced compensation be kept in a Fixed Deposit in the name of the wife of the deceased. In Claim Case No. 101/05 (M.A. No. 133/06), the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 3,99,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,81,500/-. Hence the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of (Rs. 2,85,000 -1,81,500) = Rs. 1,03,500/- (Rupees One lac three thousands and five hundred only). In Claim Case No. 102/05 (M.A. No. 130/06), the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 3,99,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,83,000/-. Hence, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of (Rs. 3,99,000 -1,83,000) = Rs. 2,16,000/- (Rupees Two lacs sixteen thousands only). 50% of the enhanced compensation be kept in Fixed Deposit in equal proportionate in the name of children of the deceased upto maturity. In all the cases, the enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim applications before the Claims Tribunal upto realization. The claimants are also entitled to get cost of Rs. 5,000/- in each of the case.