PUSHPA @ LEELA & ORS. versus SHAKUNTALA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 334 · Decided: 12-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

(2011] 1 S.C.R. 334 
,. 
A 
PUSHPA @ LEELA & ORS. 
v. 
SHAKUNTALA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.6924 of 2005) 
B 
JANUARY 12, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
~ 
c 
s. 166 read with ss.2(30) and 50- Fatal accident- Claim 
petitions by heirs of deceased persons - At the time of 
accident offending truck in possession of transferee but 
change of ownership not recorded in registration certificate -
Tr_uck covered under insurance policy taken out in the name 
D of recorded owner - Claims Tribunal held the claimants 
entitled to compensation - Liability to pay compensation -
HELD: In view of the omission to change the name of owner 
in certificate of registration, the transferor (recorded owner) 
must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for 
E 
the purposes of the Act - Therefore, he was equally liable for 
payment of compensation amount - Further, since the 
insurance policy was taken out in his name, he was 
indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the insurer. 
-
Constitution of India, 1950: 
F 
Article 136 - Appeal - Similar relief to non-appellants -
Claims Tribunal allowed two claim petitions filed by heirs of 
two victims of a motor accident and held them entitled to 
specified amounts of compensation -
Appeal before 
G Supreme Court only in one case by heirs of one of the 
deceased - Directions given to insurance company for -
payment of compensation to heirs of both the deceased in 
both the cases - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Appeal. 
H 
334 
-
PUSHPA @ LEELA & ORS. v. SHAKUNTALA & 
335 
ORS. 
One 'PC' hired a truck for carrying some materials A 
and engaged 'NR' as labourer for loading and unloading 
the materials. The truck met with an accident as a result, 
all the three, namely, 'PC', 'NR' and the driver of the truck 
died. On the date of the accident the truck was in 
possession of the transferee although the transferor was B 
the registered owner thereof as the transferee was not 
registered as the owner, and the truck was covered by 
an insurance policy taken out in the name of the 
registered owner. The heirs of deceased 'PC' and 'NR' 
filed claim petitions against the transferee, the registered c 
owner, and the insurer. The Motor Accident Claims 
Tribunal held the heirs of 'PC' entitled to Rs.5,16,000/- and 
heirs of 'NR' to Rs.2,42,000/- as compensation and held 
the transferee alone as liable for payment of 
compensation. The appeals of the claimants were 0 
dismissed by the High Court. 
/ 
In the instant appeal filed by the heirs of deceased 
'PC', the question for consideration before the Court was: 
"whether in the fact and circumstances of the case the 
liability to pay the compensation amount as determined E 
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was of the 
purchaser of the vehicle alone or whether the liability of 
the recorded owner of the vehicle was coextensive and 
from the recorded owner it would pass on to the insurer 
of the vehicle?" 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 
1. It is undeniable that notwithstanding the sale of the G 
vehicle neither the transferor nor the transferee took any 
step for· the chang·e of the name of the owner in the 
·certificate of registration of the vehicle. In view of this 
omission, the transferor must be deemed to continue as 
H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, even though under the civil law he ceased 
to be its owner after its sale on 2.2.1993. Therefore, he 
was equally liable for payment of the compensation 
amount. Further, since an insurance policy in respect of 
B the truck was taken out in his name he was indemnified 
and the claim will be shifted to the insurer. The 
compensation amount is equally realisable from 
respondent no.3, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and 
it is directed to make full payment of the compensation 
c amount, as determined by the Claims Tribunal, to the 
appellants. [para 11, 14 and 16] [342-F-G; 344-G-H; 345-A-
G] 
Dr. T. V. Jose vs. Chacko P.M., 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 
366 = 2001 (8) SCC 748; P.P. Mohammed vs. K. Rajappan 
D 
& Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 624 - relied on 
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi & Ors., 
2007 (13) SCR 134 = (2008) 1 SCC 414 - distinguished. 
E 
2. Even though the claimants in the other case, 
namely, the heirs and legal representatives of deceased 
'NR', have not come to this Court, it would be appropriate 
to give the same direction in respect of their c

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