Dismissed

Banshilal v. Prem Kanwar

Rajasthan HC25 Nov 2022CMA/90/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan disposed of this civil miscellaneous appeal concerning vehicular accident liability. The appellant, the registered owner, sought exemption from liability, arguing a recent transfer of possession and ownership to a purchaser. The court held that under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the registered owner is liable, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the record of the Tribunal was to be forwarded.

Banshilal Vs Prem Kanwar — Rajasthan HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 90/2022

¶3

Banshilal S/o Choga Ji, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Tappara, Tehsil Pachpadara, District Barmer (Raj.)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Prem Kanwar W/o Late Lakh Singh Rajput, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Peeploon, Tehsil Shivana, District Barmer (Raj.)

¶7

Mohan Singh (Deceased), S/o Late Lakh Singh Rajput

¶8

Than Singh S/o Late Lakh Singh Rajput, Aged About 13 Years, Minor Through Natural Mother Who Is Also Respondent Number 1 Smt. Prem Kanwar, Widow Of Late Lakh Singh Rajput, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Peeploon, Tehsil Shivana, District Barmer (Raj.)

¶9

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Office Kehcheri Road, Post Jalore District Jalore (Raj.)

¶10

Arjun Singh S/o Punaram, R/o Purohito Ka Baas, Shivana, Tehsil Shivana, District Barmer (Raj.)

¶11

Ashok S/o Baburam, R/o Vaarni, Nausara, Tehsil Aahor, District Jalore

¶12

			----Respondents
For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Ravi Panwar Ms. Anushri Gaur
For Respondent(s)	:	-

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

25/11/2022

¶16

Instant appeal has been preferred on the ground that the appellant has been wrongly held liable for the amount of compensation in relation to a vehicular accident which took place on 20.10.2009.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CMA-90/2022]

¶19

The facts in brief, relevant for the present purposes are that on 20.10.2009 an accident took place involving vehicle (motorcycle) bearing registration No.GJ 2 AA 1369 and the appellant's vehicle being a Tractor Trolly bearing registration No.RJ 04 RA 0110. The deceased Kalyan Singh who was plying the above referred motorcycle, when hit by the above referred Tractor Trolly succumbed to the injuries sustained and died instantaneously.

¶20

It is the case of the appellant that five days before the date of accident, the possession and the ownership of the aforesaid Tractor Trolly was transferred to Arjun Singh (respondent No.5), who was driving the Tractor at the relevant time.

¶21

Mr. Ravi Panwar and Ms. Anushri Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the appellant does not dispute the quantum of damages and their only contention is that the liability arising out of the vehicular accident should be fixed on the possessor and owner of the vehicle, who in the present case is Arjun Singh, who had not only accepted the possession of the vehicle but also accepted to have executed the document in the form of a sale letter dated 15.10.2009. It was argued that since the possession and ownership had been transferred on 15.10.2009 itself, the liability arising out of the accident occurred on 20.10.2009 is required to be borne by Arjun Singh (respondent No.5) and the appellant cannot be held liable for the compensation, simply because he was shown as a registered owner of the vehicle in the record.

¶22

It was also argued that subsequent fact that the vehicle got transferred in the name of respondent No.5 - Arjun Singh on

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CMA-90/2022]

¶25

29.10.2009 pursuant to said sale letter dated 15.10.2009 is a proof of the fact that the sale de-facto took place on 15.10.2009. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 7. The argument of the appellant at the first flush appears to be attractive that the possession and ownership is to transfer on execution of the sale letter dated 15.10.2009, but if such contention is tested on the anvil of section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there remains no doubt that the ownership of vehicle, as per law, is with the registered owner. The registration of the vehicle got changed in the name of respondent No.5, on 20.10.2009. Hence, as per section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the registered owner of the vehicle is liable for the compensation arising out of the vehicular accident.

¶26

This Court is not much convinced with the argument of Mr. Panwar that the vehicle was released on supurdaginama to none other than respondent No.5 and he had accepted the factum of possession of vehicle at the time of accident.

¶27

There is no substance and force in the appeal, for which it is dismissed.

¶28

Record of the Tribunal be sent forthwith.

¶29

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶30

3-Ramesh/-

Banshilal v. Prem Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banshilal v. Prem Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sumati Vs State

Divya Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Pooja Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyajeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Anuradha Dadhich Vs Anurag Verma

Smt. Patasi Vs Smt. Hapu Devi and Ors.