Dismissed

Madhai Pandit And Anr. v. Bisakha Pandit

Jharkhand HC5 Jul 2022MA/319/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged compensation liability assigned to a vehicle in-charge under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that despite joint ownership by an unregistered group, the appellant could be held individually liable as a joint tortfeasor, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant direct to recover share from other members separately.

Madhai Pandit And Anr. Vs Bisakha Pandit — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M.A No. 319 of 2016

¶3

With

¶4

I.A. Nos. 3166 of 2018 & 5929 of 2017

¶5

-----1. Madhai Pandit 2. Butan Pandit …. …. Appellant(s). Versus Bisakha Pandit …. …. Respondent(s) ------

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶7

For the Appellant(S) : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, Advocate

¶8

21/05.07.2022

¶9

Heard the parties.

¶10

This appeal is against the judgment dated 11.5.2016 passed by District Judge-I-cum-Presiding Officer, MACT, Jamtara in Claim Case No. 10 of 2013. 3. This appeal is at the instance of the owner of the vehicle namely Madhai Pandit.

¶11

Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant by challenging the award has raised only one issue. As per him, he was only in-charge of the vehicle, in fact the vehicle belong to a group of ten person including the appellant, who are the members of the “Kishan Vikas Samuha” and the vehicle was also registered in the name of “Kishan Vikas Samuha”, that being so, the appellant alone could not be saddled with the liability to pay the amount of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. He submit that all the 10 person were the owner of the vehicle of Kishan Vikas Samuha who ought to have been made party in the claim application. The claim application is not maintainable in their absence. He admits that the vehicle in question was not insured at the time of accident. On the point of quantum, he has not challenged the same nor has questioned the manner in which the accident had taken place.

¶12

Counsel for the respondent-claimant submits that the registration documents of the vehicle suggest that the appellant was in-charge of the vehicle and that being so, he is the owner in terms of Section 2 (30) of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1988. He further submits that this “Kishan Vikash Samuha” is not a registered body and it is merely a group of private person, thus is not a legal entity.

¶13

-2-

¶14

Since “Kishan Vikash Samuha” is not a legal entity and the vehicle is admittedly shown to be under the Control of the appellant as in-charge, and he is a member of the said Samittee, the Tribunal has correctly passed the award directing the appellant to pay the amount of compensation.

¶15

Considering the limited issue raised in this appeal. It is not necessary to deals with the other aspect of the accident which has not been raised by the parties in this appeal. The only question which needs to be answer is whether the appellant alone could have been saddled with the liability to pay the amount of compensation.

¶16

The claimants filed the claim application claiming compensation for death of Ram Pandit who was working as labourer in the Tractor bearing Registration No. JH 21B 5872 and Trailor bearing Registration No. JH 21B 5873. The manner of accident has not been disputed nor it was disputed that the deceased was a labourer.

¶17

Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines ‘owner’ which reads as follows:-

¶18

“2(30) “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.”

¶19

Under a scheme of the government to generate employment the government of Jharkhand facilitated distribution of vehicles to a group of 10 persons jointly, on finance, thus all the ten persons are the joint owner of the vehicle. The certificate of registration is on record and is marked as Exhibit- Z for the purpose of identification. From the aforesaid document, I find that the vehicle is a tractor and trailor and registered in the name of “Kishan Vikash Samuha” I/C Madhai Pandit. This Madhai Pandit is the appellant before this Court. From the aforesaid document it is clear that Madhai Pandit is shown to be in-charge of the vehicle. His photograph is also affixed in the registration certificate. Thus from the document it is quite clear that “Kishan Vikash Samuha” is the owner of the vehicle and Madhai Pandi was incharge of the vehicle and is one of the member of the “Kishan Vikash Samuha”.

¶20

-3-

¶21

It is the case of the appellant that there are other members. The evidence of the claimants also suggest that there were other members of “Kishan Vikash Samuha”. Both the parties admits that this “Kishan Vikash Samuha” is not a registered body but it is only a group of ten persons who has formed the “Kishan Vikash Samuha” as per the Scheme of the government for generating employment. Thus, at best it can be said that all the member of “Kishan Vikash Samuha” are the joint owners of the vehicle in question. It can also be inferred that there is some partnership amongst them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashutosh V. State of Rajasthan reported in (2005) 7 SCC 208 in paragraph no. 13 has held that liability of the partners is joint and several. It is open to a creditor of the firm to recover the debt from any one or more of the partners. Each partner shall be liable as if the debt of the firm has been incurred on his personal liability.

¶22

Thus considering the aforesaid analogy, in this case it can be held that in the instant case also the liability of all the member of the Kishan Vikas Samuha is joint and several. The fact that the vehicle was a jointly owned is also admitted by the claimants in their evidence. Further in the case of Khenyei V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 it has been held that when there are one or more joint tortfeasors, the claimants are entitled to full compensation and the liability of the tortfeasors were joint and several. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that on failure of the claimant to implead one of the joint tortfeasors, contributory liability cannot be fastened upon the claimant to the extent of the negligence of non-impleaded joint tortfeasors. It is for joint tortfeasors made liable to pay compensation to take proceedings to settle the equities as against other joint fortfeasors who has not been impleaded. It is open to the impleaded joint tortfeasors to sue the other wrongdoer, after the decree or award is given to realise to the extent of others’ liability. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to a judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Ganesh vs Syed Munned Ahamed & Others reported in (1998) SCC online Kar 603 had held that it is not necessary to implead all the joint tortfeasors and Non-impleadment of one of the joint tortfeasors is not a defence to reduce the compensation payable to the claimant.

¶23

-4-

¶24

Considering the aforesaid judgment and the principle laid down and also considering the fact that admittedly this appellant is one of the member of “Kishan Vikash Samuha” and is shown to be the in-charge of the vehicle, I hold that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay the amount of compensation as the owner of the offending vehicle, in view of the admitted fact that vehicle was not insured. I find no merit in this appeal, this appeal stands dismissed.

¶25

Before parting, in view of the judgment referred to above it will be open to the appellant to proceed against the other members of the “Kishan Vikash Samuha” to recover the amount, after making payment to the claimant. I.A. Nos. 3166 of 2018 & 5929 of 2017

¶26

In view of the order passed in the main appeal, these interlocutory applications stands dismissed.

¶27

anjali/cp2

Madhai Pandit And Anr. v. Bisakha Pandit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhai Pandit And Anr. v. Bisakha Pandit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Ferasat Hussain Vs Hardyal Singh And Anr.

Chinta Devi and Anr. Vs Rakesh Kumar Naik and Ors.

National Insurance Company Limited Through Assistant Manager Jharkhand Legal Cell Vs Rameshwar Lohra And Ors.

Roshan Ara Begam And Ors. Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through The Divisional Manager And Ors.

Arjun Ram Mahli Vs Shayam Devisut Chobey And Ors.

Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited Reprr Thr Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs Pushpa Orain And Ors.