PURNYA KALA DEVI versus STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 07-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 5 S.C.R. 67 
PURNYA KALA DEVI 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1672 of 2010) 
APRIL 07, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND 
N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.2(30) - Motor accident - By 
A 
B 
a private uninsured vehicle under requisition of State C 
Government at the relevant time - Liability to pay 
· compensation - Whether on the registered owner or on the 
State - Held: In view of the fact that the State failed to prove 
that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was not under 
requisition, the State being in possession and control of the 
D 
vehicle, would be construed as the 'owner' of the vehicle -
Hence, liable, to pay the compensation - Registered owner 
of the vehicle cannot be held liable if the vehicle is not in his 
possession or control - State directed to pay the compensation 
as fixed by the High Court - Assam Requisition and Control 
E 
of Vehicles Act, 1968 - s.5(1). ' 
Words and Phrases - 'Owner' - Meaning of, in the context 
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
Appellant-claimant's husband died in a road accident 
F 
by a private. bus -.yhich was not insured under requisition 
of the' State Government at the re·levant time under Assam 
Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968. Before the 
Claims Tribunal, the owner of the offending vehicle 
denied its liability to pay compensation on the ground 
G 
that the vehicle was requisitioned with the State. The 
State denied its liability on the ground that, it was not the 
owner and the offending vehicle had already been 
released from requisition before the accident in question. 
67 
H 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 
A Tribunal directed the registered owner of the offending 
vehicle to pay Rs.1,41,400/- with interest @ 9% per 
annum to the claimant and absolved the State from any 
liability. In appeal High Court enhanced the compensation 
by Rs.50,000/- and held that State Government was not 
B liable to pay the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 
1988. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 5(1) of the Assam Requisition and 
C Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 provides that a vehicle may 
be released from requisition after service of notice in 
writing on the owner to take delivery of the vehicle on or 
with such date and from such place or from such person 
as may be specified therein and with effect from such 
D date no liability for compensation shall lie with the officer 
or authority. The State has not placed any material, such 
as notice in writing served on the owner, to prove that 
the delivery of vehicle was effected on such date and time 
in terms of Section 5(1) of the Assam Act. [Para 12] [75-
E B-D] 
2. Though the above point was pressed into service, 
the High Court, without adverting to Section 5 of the 
Assam Act, merely on the basis of the definition of 
"owner" as contained in Section 2(30) of the Motor 
F Vehicles Act, 1988, mulcted the award payable by the 
owQer of the vehicle. The High Court faile(:I to appreciate 
that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was under 
the requisition of respondent No.1-State under the 
provisions of the Assam Act. Therefore, respondent No. 
G 1 was squarely covered under the definition of "owner" 
as contained in Section 2(30) of the 1988 Act. The High 
Court failed to appreciate the underlying legislative 
intention in including in the definition of "owner" a 
person in possession of a vehicle either under an 
H agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation or 
PURNYA KALA DEVI v. STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. 
69 
under a hire-purchase agreement to the effect that a 
A 
person in control and possession of the vehicle should · 
be construed as the "owner" and not alone the 
registered owner. The High Court further failed to . 
appreciate the legislative intention that the registered . 
owoer of the vehicle should not be held liable if the 
B 
vehicle was not in his possession and control. [Para 13] 
[75-E-H; 76-A] 
3. The Tribunal also erred in accepting the allegation 
of Respondent No. 2 that the vehicle was released on the 
date of the accident at 10.30 a.m. and the accident C 
occurred at 10.30 a.m. without any evidence even though . 
in the claim petition, it was stated that the accident had 
occurred at 10. 15 a.m. [Para 13] [76-8-C] 
4. The High Court also failed to appreciate that . 0 . 
Section 146 of the 1988 Act requires that no person shall 
use or cause or allow any other person to use a 

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