Motor accident appeal where the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,24,000 against the registered owner who claimed he had sold the jeep before the accident. The High Court held that absent transfer of the registration certificate, the seller remains owner and liable, confirmed the award, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 09.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013
Srinivasan ... Appellant/1st Respondent Vs.
1.S.Balaji ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.K.Muthuvel ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.59 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tirunelveli, dated 14.03.2013.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu for Mr.S.Paul Murugesan
R-1 : Dismissed For R-2 : Mr.V.Sasi Kumar
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed as against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.59 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tirunelveli, wherein the first respondent herein filed a petition for compensation as against the appellant and second respondent herein.
will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the Tribunal.
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
On 22.07.2008, the petitioner while riding a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 09 S 1504 near Palayamkottai Market, the first respondent vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 69 B 7952 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. Thereby the petitioner sustained injury. The accident took place due to the negligence of the first respondent vehicle driver, thereby filed the petition for claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
either side, the Tribunal has passed an award as against the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- and thereafter, the second respondent can recover the same from the first respondent.
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
disability to the petitioner. However, the award passed by the Tribunal is too high.
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
second respondent would contend that the accident took place only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler and this petitioner on the date of accident drove the vehicle in a slow speed and cautious manner in spite of that the rider of the driver dashed against the jeep and invited the accident. Already the Tribunal has dismissed the petition as against the second respondent since he is the only driver of the vehicle.
documents including the order of the Tribunal, the point for determination in this appeal is:
i) Whether the appeal is liable to be allowed or not?
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
the date of petition till the date of realisation and thereafter, recover the same from the second respondent herein. According to the appellant, already he had sold the vehicle which involved in the accident to the second respondent herein (i.e.,) on 09.05.2007. The second respondent also admitted the purchase of the vehicle from the appellant. On the date of accident, the second respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the first respondent is not the owner of the vehicle. However, the appellant admitted that on the date of accident, the registration certificate was not transferred either in the name of the first respondent or in the name of the second respondent. On the date of accident, the name transfer was not effected and the registration certificate was stood in the name of the appellant. It is a well settled law that unless the name transfer was effected in the registration certificate, the first respondent has to be treated as owner of vehicle and thereby, the Tribunal after taking into consideration of all the aspects correctly fastened the liability as against the appellant / first respondent and the same is correct, thereby, this Court has no warrant to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. As far as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for 1% of disability and also awarded fair compensation and also on other heads, the
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
award amount awarded by the Tribunal is fair and reasonable. Hence, this
Court has no warrant to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
09.01.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
To
Tirunelveli.
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
P. DHANABAL, J.
BTR
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
09.01.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a vehicle seller whose name remained on the registration certificate despite sale remains liable as owner in a motor accident claim?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Srinivasan
S.Balaji
K.Muthuvel
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
