Sr. No 16 v. Tariq Ahmad Mir

01. Heard Mr. A.A.Wani, learned counsel for the appellant, namely, Hakim Din Kandal.

02. This is a statutory appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [„MV Act‟] addressed against an award dated 6th February, 2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar [„MACT‟] on file no. 31/2012.

03. The claim petition was filed by three claimants, namely, Ab. Ahad Najar, Bashir Ahmad Najar and Javaid Ahmad Najar, who are respondent nos‟ 3 to 5 here in the present appeal. The claim petition was filed under section 166 of the MV Act on account of death of one Mst. Zeeba Begum as a result of a motor vehicle accident caused by offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing Registration No. JK09/1423. Accident occurred on 9th July, 2011 when the deceased was commuting in the said offending vehicle which was driven by Tariq Ahmad Mir, the respondent No. 1 in the claim petition and now respondent no. 1 in the present appeal. Accident took place near Khumrayal Briddge Lolab Kupwara Main Road when the respondent No. 1 (Tariq Ahmad Mir) lost control of the offending vehicle resulting in fall of the offending vehicle in a deep Nallah resulting in fatal injuries to Mst Zeeba Begum. FIR No. 187/2011 came to be registered by the Police Station, Kupwara with respect to the accident. The three claimants (respondents 3 to 5 herein) are the husband and the sons of the deceased Mst. Zeeba Begum, who sought compensation.

04. In the original claim petition, in addition to the respondent No. 1 (Tariq Ahmad Mir) being the driver of the offending vehicle, the registered owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 2, namely, Mohammad Yaqoob Jangray herein (respondent No. 2 in the claim petition as well) came to be impleaded. There was no Insurance Company named in the claim petition.

05. The two respondents i.e., driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle appears to have filed written statement and later on respondent No. 1 ,Tariq Ahmad Mir (driver) came to be proceeded ex-parte and the claim petition continued to be contested by the respondent No. 2 (Mohammad Yaqoob Jangray).

06. It was on 4th October, 2012 that the present appellant came to be impleaded as a respondent No. 3 in the claim petition by reference to him being a prospective owner of the offending vehicle and as per the record of the MACT, Srinagar notice was issued to the appellant upon being 2 Mac App No. 26/2023 impleaded as respondent No. 3 and yet he did not appear to file written statement/response.

07. By reference to the stand of the respondent No. 2, Mohammad Yaqoob Jangray, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, it came to be stated that the offending vehicle had been sold to the appellant on 16th June, 2006 by reference to a copy of the agreement and, therefore, the registered owner of the offending vehicle sought himself to be relieved from the claim petition itself.

08. MACT, Srinagar, came to frame three issues, which are as under:- Issue No. 1. Whether on 9th July, 2011 a vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing regd. No. JK09/1423 driven by respondent no. 1 very rashly and negligently and when the said offending vehicle reached at Khumrayal Bridge Lolab, Kupwara, the driver of the said O/V could not control over it, with the result the said vehicle turned turtle from the bridge and fell into the deep Nallah, as a consequence of which the deceased namely Mst. Zeeba Begum died on spot.? OPP Issue No. 2 In case the issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion. OPP Issue No. 3 Relief?

09. There was no issue framed with respect to the liability of registered owner of the vehicle vis-a-vis prospective owner as the appellant was shown to be by the registered owner i.e., respondent no. 2.

10. MACT, Srinagar, by virtue of an award dated 6th February, 2018, came to award an amount of Rs. 5, 23,000/- along with interest @ 6.5% per annum in favour of the claimants i.e., respondents 3 to 5 herein, but held 3 Mac App No. 26/2023 the appellant to deposit the award amount, meaning thereby burdening the entire liability on the head of the appellant in his purported capacity as being the purported owner. It is this award, whereby the appellant has been fastened upon with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs. 5, 23,000/- which compelled the appellant to rush to this Court with the present appeal.

11. In the present appeal, all the five respondents came to be served and on behalf of claimants, respondents 3 to 5 Mr. B.A.Tak, came causing appearance, whereas despite service of the respondents 1 and 2, particularly, the respondent No. 2, Mohammad Yaqoob Jangray, the registered owner of offending vehicle, none has appeared and, as such, this Court proceeded ex-parte against them.

12. Mr. A A Wani, learned counsel for the appellant has cited the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and Ors (2018) 3 SCC 1 to vehemently stress the point that MACT, Srinagar seriously erred in excusing the respondent no.2, Mohammad Yaqoob Jangray, the registered owner of the offending vehicle from the liability of paying compensation whatsoever in favour of claimants (respondents 3 to 5) and instead roping in the appellant by purported reference to him as being prospective owner, which, in the eyes of law, is no reference to fasten liability under MV Act with respect to the claim of compensation under section 166 thereof.

13. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court (supra) would show in very categoric terms that in a situation where registered owner purportedly transfers the offending vehicle but continues to be reflected 4 Mac App No. 26/2023 in the records of the Registering Authority as owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability and for this the definition of the owner in section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicle Act has been referred. By underlying the principle of Proviso of section 2 (30) that victim of a motor accident, or in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty as a claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trial of successive transfers, which are not registered with the Registering Authority, which, if allowed to be the practice, would defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

14. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, this Court is of considered view point that MACT, Srinagar without framing a specific issue with respect to the liability of the appellant upon being impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the claim petition seriously erred in application of the law and, accordingly, the award to the extent of fastening the liability upon the appellant is misconceived and to that extent the award needs to be set-aside by remand of the matter to the MACT, Srinagar to decide the issue between the appellant and respondent No. 2 as to who amongst the two is to be held liable for the discharge of liability in favour of the respondents 3 to 5 for the compensation as assessed in the award itself.

15. Accordingly, the award passed by the MACT, Srinagar is set-aside to said extent. The appellant is directed to appear before the MACT, Srinagar on 17th September, 2024. The MACT, Srinagar to issue notice to 5 Mac App No. 26/2023 the respondent No. 2, Mohammad Yaqoob Jangray for appearance in the case and, accordingly, issue be framed to the extent of adjudication of liability between the appellant and respondent 2. The final adjudication to be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgement. MACT, Srinagar shall be at its discretion to summon the claimants as well with respect to the adjudication of the issue in the aforesaid context as set out by this Court.

16. Disposed of. CM (M) No. 134/2022 CM No. 4230/2022 In the light of the Judgment given in Mac App. No. 26/2023, the proceedings undertaken before the MACT, Srinagar, with respect to the execution of award against the appellant shall also stand terminated till final adjudication comes forth from the MACT, Srinagar. SRINAGAR: 27.08.2024 “Shamim Dar ” (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting ? Yes/No Whether the Judgment is speaking one? Yes/No 6 Mac App No. 26/2023