NAVEEN KUMAR V. VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS. versus VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 572 · Decided: 06-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
NAVEEN KUMAR
v.
VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1427 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 06, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.2(30) – ‘Owner’ –  Motor vehicle
driven in reverse gear hit two persons – One died on the spot, while
the other received multiple injuries – Vehicle involved in the
accident was registered in the name of First respondent – However,
before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal successive transfers of the
vehicle was put forth as a defence to the claim – Tribunal held the
First respondent liable along with the driver of the vehicle as the
registration certificate of the offending vehicle continued to be in
his name – Appeal by First respondent before High Court, allowed
– Held: The person in whose name a motor vehicle stands
registered is the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act –
Thus, in the present case where the registered owner purportedly
transferred the vehicle but continued to be reflected in the records
as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of
liability– Principle underlying the provisions of s.2(30) is that the
victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs
of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty– A
claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following
a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the
registering authority– In the present case, admittedly the vehicle
was uninsured – Liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon
the First respondent– Judgment of High Court is set aside– Motor
Vehicles Act,1939– s.2(19)– Interpretation of Statutes.
A motor vehicle driven by one ‘R’ in the reverse gear hit
one ‘JD’ and her nephew ‘N’. ‘N’ was run over by the rear wheel
of the car and died on the spot while, ‘JD’ received multiple
injuries. The vehicle involved in the accident was registered in
the name of the First respondent. However, before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, the First respondent claimed that he
had sold the vehicle to the Second respondent, who stated that
  [2018] 2 S.C.R. 572
   572
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
he had sold it to the Third respondent, who in turn claimed to
have sold the vehicle to the appellant. The appellant claimed that
he had sold the vehicle to one ‘MS’. The Tribunal held the First
respondent liable along with the driver of the vehicle. In appeal,
High Court foisted the liability to pay compensation on the
appellant. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The person in whose name a motor vehicle
stands registered is the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The use of the expression ‘means’
is a clear indication of the position that it is the registered owner
who Parliament has regarded as the owner of the vehicle.
Evidently, Parliament while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
made a specific change by recasting the earlier definition.
Section 2(19) of the earlier Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 stipulated
that where a person in possession of a motor vehicle is a minor,
the guardian of the minor would be the owner and where the
motor vehicle was subject to a hire purchase agreement, the
person in possession of the vehicle under the agreement would
be the owner. The Act of 1988 has provided in the first part of
Section 2(30) that the owner would be the person in whose name
the motor vehicle stands registered. Where such a person is a
minor the guardian of the minor would be the owner. In relation
to a motor vehicle which is the subject of an agreement of hire
purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of
the vehicle under that agreement would be the owner. The latter
part of the definition is in the nature of an exception which
applies where the motor vehicle is the subject of a hire purchase
agreement or of an agreement of lease or hypothecation.
[Para 6][578-F-H; 579-A-B]
1.2  In a situation such as the present where the registered
owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continued to be
reflected in the records of the registering authority as the owner
of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability.
Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the
expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), making a departure from
the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The
principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.