Gopal Singh Negi Vs. Netar Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
motor vehicles - compensation - liability to pay - present appeal filed against award whereby appellant who alleged to be owner of vehicle was held liable for making payment of compensation in motor accident claim instead of insurance company whereas cross appeal filed by claimant for enhancement of compensation amount - held, there is nothing to show that vehicle in question was transferred in name of appellant - sale transaction made by respondent no.2/original owner in favour of respondent no.3 stand proved, as respondent no.3 admitted in his statement - however, there is no evidence that respondent no.3 further sold vehicle in question to appellant - keeping in view of above, it is held that respondent no. 2 registered owner and respondent no. 3 being transferee, admittedly are liable jointly to pay compensation - accordingly, appeal filed by appellant is allowed and findings of tribunal are modified to this extent that both respondent nos. 2 and 3 are liable jointly to pay compensation awarded by tribunal - so far as cross appeal is concerned, it is clear that claimant had claimed certain amount allegedly spent by him for his treatment but he had not furnished cash memos - tribunal had rightly allowed compensaton for medical expenses and diet etc. to extent of certain amount - no infirmity could be pointed out in regard to amount awarded under different heads - amount of compensation awarded by tribunal does not call for an interference - cross appeal filed by claimant is dismissed accordingly - code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. order 14, rule 2 [as amended by amending act of 1976]: [v.k. gupta, cj, deepak gupta & surjit singh, jj] preliminary issue of law and fact court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of court held, except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of rule 2 of order 14 where a court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. this course of action is not available to a court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. sub-rule (1) clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the court covering all the issues framed in the suit.v.k. ahuja, j.1. this is an appeal filed by the appellant under section 173 of the motor vehicles act against the award of the court of learned motor accident claims tribunal, solan, dated 6.1.2004, vide which the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of rs. 70,000/- as compensation in favour of the petitioner and as against the present appellant who was respondent no. 4 before the learned tribunal. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 as claimant filed a petition under section 166 of the motor vehicles whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes. act, 1988, as against the appellant who was impleaded as respondent no. 4 and as against respondents no. 2 to 4 who were impleaded as respondents no. 1 to 3. the petitioner had alleged that on 5.10.1999 at about 9.00 p.m., he was going to his house on foot and he was hit by a motor cycle no. ch-01-j 7981 being driven by anand rajan rashly or negligently. the petitioner suffered injuries and filed a claim petition claiming a sum of rs. three lacs as compensation from the respondents who were allegedly the owners of the motor cycle in question. the person driving the motor cycle, namely, anand rajan died and as such, he was not impleaded as a party. it appears that the vehicle was not insured and as such, the insurance company was not impleaded as a party. the learned tribunal tried the case and on conclusion held that the petitioner was entitled for a sum of rs. 70,000/- from respondent no. 4 who was held to be the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. it was submitted that respondent no. 1, namely, rajiv kumar was the registered owner of the vehicle and the r.c. was still in his name as per his own statement. it was submitted that respondent no. 4 was impleaded as respondent on an application filed in this behalf but the evidence led do not prove that he had become the owner according to law or that he was the registered owner of the vehicle and as such, the findings of the learned tribunal to the contrary are liable to be reversed and as such, present respondent no. 2 was liable to pay the amount in question.3. on the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the documents proved in evidence prove that the vehicle had been transferred in the name of respondent no. 4/appellant and as such, the findings of learned tribunal do not call for an interference by this court. to substantiate his plea, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 had relied upon the following decisions:the decision in sumathy and ors. v. raghavan and ors. 1997 acj 260, in which it was held that if the sale of the vehicle is complete according to the provisions of sale of goods act, notwithstanding the fact that there is no mutation in the registration certificate in favour of the transferee, the transferee becomes its owner and the registered owner is not liable.4. the decision in oriental insurance co. ltd. v. rajamani and ors. : 1992 acj 354, was relied upon, but it only deals with the liability of insurance company on transfer and it was held that the insurance company is exempted from liability on transfer of the vehicle.5. the decision in harbans singh v. krishan lal and ors. 1984 a.c.j. 650, was relied upon, in which the owner admitted himself to be the owner of the vehicle and that he had purchased it prior to the accident. vehicle was registered and insured in the name of its previous owner 'b' at the time of accident. it was held that 'b' the registered owner and the insurer were not liable to 'a' the person who had purchased the vehicle was held to be liable. it was further observed that registration was not a necessary ingredient of a completed title of ownership.6. coming to the evidence in this regard, respondent no. 1 rajiv sharma has stepped into the witness box as rw-1 and he stated that he was owner of the motor cycle in question and he had sold it to harjinder i.e. respondent no. 2 in the month of january, 1995. he admitted in cross-examination that perhaps the r.c. is still in his name. rw-2 harjinder had stated that he had purchased the motor cycle from respondent no. 1. he further sold it to respondent no. 3 gurcharan singh in may, 1997. he did not produce the copy of any affidavit or any other documents to prove that the vehicle was purchased by respondent no. 3 from him and in which year. he admitted that r.c. remained in the name of respondent no. 1. it was not transferred by him in his name. respondent no. 3 has stepped into the witness box as rw-3 and he stated that he tenders in evidence his affidavit ext. rx alongwith the affidavit of respondent no. 4 ext. ry and another affidavit of respondent no. 4 ext. rz. he stated that these affidavits were not executed in his presence. he has not stated that these affidavits bear the signatures of respondent no. 4 or that respondent no. 4 had signed in his presence and these were not attested in his presence. therefore, both these documents cannot be said to be of any help since they have not been proved in accordance with law.7. respondent no. 4 gopal singh has appeared in the witness box as rw-3 and he simply stated that he tenders in evidence his affidavit ext. r.c. he denied the suggestion that he had sold the vehicle to one geeta ram hans or the r.c. was in his name. this document is of no relevance since it is only an affidavit of respondent no. 4 himself filed before the motor accident claims tribunal alleging that he is neither the owner nor remained as owner of the same. this affidavit does not show that the deponent had pleaded that he had never purchased this vehicle allegedly from respondent no. 3. gurcharan singh.8. the findings of learned tribunal on other issues are not under challenge. the only point under challenge is the liability of owner who is liable to pay the amount. admittedly, respondent no. 2 rajiv kumar was the registered owner of the vehicle and he admits this fact and there is nothing to show that the vehicle was transferred in the name of other respondents as has come up in evidence. insofar as the sale transaction in favour of original respondents no. 3 and 4 (appellant and respondent no. 4 before this court) are concerned by original respondents no. 2 and 3 respectively, there is no evidence on record to show that the original respondent no. 2 had sold the vehicle in question to original respondent no. 3 or original respondent no. 3 had sold it to respondent no. 4. no documentary evidence has been led on record to prove these sale transactions by respondent no. 2 in favour of respondent no. 3 or by respondent no. 3 in favour of respondent no. 4. however, insofar as the first transaction is concerned in regard to sale by respondent no. 1 rajiv kumar in favour of respondent no. 2 harjinder, the said harjinder has admitted that he had purchased the motor cycle in question from rajiv kumar respondent no. 1 but he has not able to prove the sale made by him in favour of respondent no. 3 or the subsequent sale made by respondent no. 3.9. thus, from the above discussion it follows that respondent no. 2 was admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle and respondent no. 3 harjindedr admits in his statement on oath in court that he had purchased the motor cycle in question from rajiv kumar respondent no. 2, though the r.c. remained in favour of said respondent no. 2. in such circumstances when respondent no. 2 has been proved to be the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle still remains in his name, it has to be considered as to whether respondent no. 2 being registered owner is liable to pay the compensation or respondent no. 3 who had admittedly purchased the vehicle from respondent no. 1 is liable to pay the compensation since he had failed to prove the valid sale by him in favour of respondent no. 4 gurshan singh or subsequent sale in favour of appellant. respondent no. 2 in his statement had stated that he had sold the vehicle to respondent no. 3 harjinder in the month of january, 1995. there was no cross-examination on behalf of respondent no. 3 in this regard and this statement goes unrebutted. the date of accident is 5.10.1999 which shows that the vehicle stood already sold to respondent no. 3 prior to the accident. the fact that this motor cycle was sold to respondent no. 3 by respondent no. 2 was admitted by respondent no. 3 in his statement and, therefore, it stands proved from the statement of respondent no. 2 that he sold it to respondent no. 3 in january, 1995 can be relied upon.10. a similar question as to the liability of registered owner as well as that of transferee in whose name the r.c. has not been changed was considered by learned single judge of this court in shiv lal v. kahnu ram and ors. : 2006 acj 2465. in that case, the learned judge has referred to two decision of the apex court. the decision in dr. t.v. jose v. chacko p.m. 2001 acj 2059 (sc) was relied upon and the observations made in para-10 are relevant and are being reproduced below: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 r.t.o. as owner.11. reliance was also placed upon a later decision of the apex court in p.p. mohammed v. k. rajappan 2003 acj 1595 (sc) and in that case, the judgment in the above case was also considered by their lordships. the observations made in dr. t.v. jose case (supra) were reproduced, in which it was observed that even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle but it does not absolve the party in whose name the vehicle stands in the r.t.o. record from liability to a third party. accordingly, it was held by the learned single judge that it is clear that both the de facto owner as well as the owner shown as such in the registration certificate are liable as far as third parties are concerned and accordingly, both the registered owner and transferee were held liable.12. this decision clearly applies to the present facts and keeping in view the above conclusion that respondent no. 1 in the original petition/respondent no. 2 before me was the registered owner and harjinder, respondent no. 3 being the transferee admittedly are liable jointly to pay the compensation. the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the findings of the learned tribunal are modified to this extent that both the respondent no. 2 rajiv kumar and harjinder, respondent no. 3 are liable jointly to pay the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal. the appeal is allowed accordingly. the parities are left to bear their own costs.c.o. no. 309 of 2004:13. the petitioner/claimant had also filed cross objections against the award for enhancement of the amount. i have gone through the reasoning given by the learned tribunal and it is clear that the petitioner had claimed a sum of rs. 48,994/- allegedly spent by him for his treatment but he had not furnished the cash memos. the learned tribunal had rightly allowed for medical expenses and diet etc. to the extent of rs. 30,000/-. no infirmity could be pointed out in regard to the amount awarded under different heads and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal does not call for an interference by this court. the cross objections filed by the petitioner/claimant are dismissed accordingly.