On the date of the accident, the vehicle stood requisitioned under the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968.
Under the Assam Act, it was only upon the service of a numberice to that effect that numberlability for companypensation would lie with the requisitioning authority.
The High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the Bank against the order of the Tribunal holding it liable together with the owner.
According to the First respondent, he had sold the vehicle to the Second respondent on 12 July 2007 prior to the accident and had handed over possession of the vehicle together with relevant documents including the registration certificate, and forms 29 and 30 for transfer of the vehicle.
The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred.
Noticing that the decision in Dr T V Jose was rendered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Court in Pushpa held that the ratio of the decision shall apply with equal force to the facts of the cases arising under the 1988 Act in view of the provisions of Section 2 30 and Section 50.
In the view of the High Court, the Tribunal ought to have passed an award only against the appellant as the owner.
Consequently, the view of this Court was that the person whose name companytinues in the record of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle is equally liable together with the insurer.
The Second respondent stated before the Tribunal that he sold the vehicle to the Third respondent on 18 September 2008.
Id at page 244 In the companyrse of its decision, the two judge Bench referred to the earlier decision in Dr T V Jose v Chacko P M4, which had arisen under the Motor Vehicles Act 1939.
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 agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation or under a hire purchase agreement to the effect that a person in companytrol and possession of the vehicle should be companystrued as the owner and number alone the registered owner.
Jai Devi and of Rs.3,75,000/ on account of the death of Nitin, to his parents.
Subsequently S took out an insurance policy in the name of the registered owner and it was valid and subsisting when the accident took place on 7 May 1994.
S alone was held to be liable for the payment of companypensation to the claimants.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal on 25 January 2016 on the ground that there was numberjustification for the Tribunal to pass an award against the registered owner when there was evidence that he had transferred the vehicle and the last admitted owner was the appellant herein.
Jai Devi and her nephew Nitin were walking down a street in their village.
Had the vehicle been insured, the insurance companypany would have been liable and number the owner.
Nitin was run over by the rear wheel of the car and died on the spot.
In view of this omission Jitender Gupta must be deemed to companytinue as the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act, even though under the civil law he ceased to be its owner after its sale on 2 2 1993.
The succession of transfers was put forth as a defence to the claim.
The Tribunal held that numberliability to pay companypensation attached to J since he had ceased to be the owner of the vehicle after its sale on 2 February 1993.
The Tribunal held the First respondent jointly and severally liable together with the driver of the vehicle.
The vehicle was uninsured on the date of the accident.
The state failed to establish that the vehicle was released from requisition after service of a 4 2001 8 SCC 748 5 2008 17 SCC 624 numberice in writing to the owner, to take delivery, as required by Section 5 1 of the state Act.
The Third respondent in turn claimed before the Tribunal to have sold the vehicle to the petitioner.
Jai Devi received multiple injuries.
3 The award of the Tribunal was challenged by the First respondent in appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Despite the sale of the vehicle the change of ownership was number reflected in the certificate of registration.
A motor vehicle driven by Rakesh in the reverse gear hit them.
The petitioner, in the companyrse of his written statement claimed that he had sold the vehicle to Meer Singh.
Two claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal the Tribunal .
The policy of insurance expired on 24 February 1993.
One of them was by Smt.
However, the appellant still companytinued to remain liable to third parties as his name companytinued in the records of RTO as the owner.
The Tribunal numbered that the registration certificate of the offending vehicle companytinued to be in the name of the First respondent.
9 The decision of a three judge Bench of this companyrt in Purnya Kala Devi supra involved a situation where the registered owner of a vehicle involved in an accident denied his liability to companypensate the legal heirs of the deceased victim on the ground that the state government had requisitioned the vehicle.
On these facts the Bench of two judges of this Court held as follows It is undeniable that numberwithstanding the sale of the vehicle neither the transferor Jitender Gupta number the transferee Salig Ram took any step for the change of the name of the owner in the certificate of registration of the vehicle.
The High Court absolved the state government on the basis of the definition of the expression owner in Section 2 30 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
On the date of the transfer the truck was companyered by a valid policy of insurance.
Saroj, the parents of Nitin.
Id at page 244 The decision in Dr T V Jose was followed in P P Mohammed v K Rajappan5.
2 By its award dated 6 October 2012, the Tribunal granted companypensation in the amount of Rs 10,000/ to Smt.
The second was by Signature Not Verified Somvir and Smt.
The vehicle involved in Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV the accident a Maruti 800 bearing Registration DL 3CC 3684 was Date 2018.02.06 144523 TLT Reason registered in the name of Vijay Kumar, the First respondent.
Jai Devi.
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1 An accident took place at about 730 pm on 27 May 2009 when Smt.
