PRAKASH CHAND DAGA versus SAVETA SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 936 · Decided: 14-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
PRAKASH CHAND DAGA
v.
SAVETA SHARMA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11369 of 2018)
DECEMBER 14, 2018
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.2(30), 50 and 177 –
Compensation – Appellant, original owner of a car, sold the said
vehicle to the first respondent – Vehicle got involved in an accident
– Second respondent received injuries – Claim petition by second
respondent – Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs.12.47 lakhs
and the liability was fastened on the driver and first respondent –
High Court modified the award to the extent that the Insurance
Company was liable to make compensation to the claimant and the
Insurance Company was given recovery rights to recover the same
from the appellant-registered owner of the vehicle – On appeal,
held: It is settled that merely because the vehicle was transferred
does not mean that such registered owner stands absolved of his
liability to a third person – So long as his name continues in RTO
records, he remains liable to a third person – Thus, High Court was
right in its finding that despite the sale of the vehicle, no transfer of
ownership, in accordance with s.50 of the Act was effected and the
appellant continued to be the owner of the vehicle.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
prescribes timelines within which the transferor and the
transferee are required to report the factum of transfer.  As per
Sub-Section 3 of said Section 50, if there be failure to report the
fact of transfer, fine could be imposed and an action under Section
177 could thereafter be taken if there is failure to pay the amount
of fine.  These timelines and obligations are only to facilitate the
reporting of the transfer.  It is not as if that if an accident occurs
within the period prescribed for reporting said transfer, the
transferor is absolved of the liability.  [Para 5][939-D-E]
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 936
936
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
937
2. Chapter XII of the Act deals with Claims Tribunals and
as to how applications for compensation are to be preferred and
dealt with.  While considering such claims, the Claims Tribunal,
in case of an accident is required to specify the amount which
shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle
involved in the accident or whether such amount be paid by all or
any of them, as the case may be.  It is well settled that for the
purposes of fixing such liability the concept of ownership has to
be understood in terms of specific definition of ‘owner’ as defined
in Section 2(30) of the Act.  [Para 6][939-E-F]
3. The High Court found that despite the sale of the vehicle,
no transfer of ownership, in accordance with Section 50 of the
Act was effected and as such the appellant continued to be the
owner in terms of definition as incorporated in Section 2(30)
of the Act. The High Court was absolutely right in allowing
the appeal. The challenge raised by the appellant must fail.
[Paras 3 and 9][938-E-F; 941-F]
Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and Others (2018) 9 SCC
1 : [ 2017] 12 SCR 805 ; Pushpa alias Leela and Ors.
v. Shakuntala and Ors.(2011) 2 SCC 240 : [2011] 1
SCR 334 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 12 SCR 805
relied on
Para 8
[2011] 1 SCR 334
relied on
Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11369
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2018 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 7010 of 2011.
Siddharth H. Rawal, Prashant Kumar, Joseph Pookkatt,
M/S. Ap & J Chambers, Advs. for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 05.04.2018
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO
No.7010/2011.
2. The appellant, original owner of a Santro Car sold said vehicle
PRAKASH CHAND DAGA v. SAVETA SHARMA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
to Ms. Saveta Sharma, first respondent on 11.09.2009.  According to the
appellant, after receiving due consideration, the possession was
transferred to said first respondent.  An accident occurred on 09.10.2009
in which one Rakesh Kumar, second respondent, received injuries.  In a
claim lodged by second respondent, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
assessed the compensation at Rs.12.47 lakhs and directed as under:
“32.  In view of my findings on the various issues above, the claim
petition is allowed w

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