Gurucharan Singh v. Smt. Mazda Begum

Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Suresh Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Dated: 11-03-2008 Hon(cid:146)ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 04-02-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Addl. District Judge/First F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.T. No. 181 of 2003. 2- Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that Sehzab son of the claimant/respondent No.1, on

5.5.2003 at about 6.30 P.M. was returning his home and when he reached near Aashirwad Enterprises on Sitarganj-Khatima Road, Tractor U.G.P. 3632 coming from opposite direction dashed him due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died instantaneously at the spot. The deceased was 16 years of age and besides his studies, he used to earn Rs. 2000/- per month from selling the goods. The claimant filed petition compensation in lieu of death of Sehzab. 3- The O.P.1 Gurucharan Singh filed written statement alleging therein that he had sold the Tractor in question to O.P. No.2, Paramjeet Singh on 17-6-2000 and after getting the price he had handed over the Tractor to him. He also alleged that at the time of accident O.P. No.2, Paramjeet Singh was the owner of the Tractor, therefore, the liability to pay compensation is on the shoulder of Paramjeet Singh. 4- The O.P. No.2, Paramjeet Singh also contested the claim petition and field his written statement, denying the allegations made in the petition.

According to him the accident occurred due to own fault of the deceased, because at the spot he suddenly appeared in order to cross the road and came under the rear wheel of the Tractor. 5- The learned Tribunal framed issues in the petition and thereafter parties led evidence in the case. The Tribunal after having considered the material on record and hearing learned counsel for parties allowed the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 1,54,500/- payable by O.P. No. 1 Gurucharan Singh along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of presentation of petition till final payment. 6- Feeling aggrieved, the O.P. No.1/appellant Gurucharan Singh has preferred this appeal before this Court. 7- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- In the present appeal the following point arises for consideration by this Court:- (cid:145)Whether the transferor of the Tractor in question has rightly been held liable to pay compensation by the learned Tribunal or the transferee of the said Tractor is liable to pay the compensation?. 9- It is the admitted case of the parties that appellant Gurucharan Singh, who was owner of the Tractor, sold it to O.P./respondent No.2 Paramjeet Singh on 17-6-2000 and handed over possession of the Tractor to him.

It is also the admitted to the parties that at the time of accident the Tractor has not been registered in the name of the transferee, Paramjeet Singh and registered owner was appellant Gurucharan Singh. Therefore, the transferor was continued to be the owner of the Tractor as his name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. 10- The Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. T.V. Jose Vs. Chako P.M. and others, reported in 2001 ACJ 2059, has held that (cid:145)there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of car, however, the transferor still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as owner, transferor may adopt appropriate proceedings against the transferee. (cid:146) 11- The above verdict taken by Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court fully applied to the facts of the case in hand. Although, the Tractor was sold to Paramjeet Singh and its possession was handed over to him and at the time of accident the Tractor was being run by him, but the same has not been got registered in his name and it was still registered in the name of appellant Gurucharan Singh, therefore, the transferor still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. 12- In view of aforesaid facts, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award.

The appellant has rightly been held liable to pay the compensation. The point is decided accordingly. 13- No other point has been raised before me. 14- The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, in case if the registered owner, wishes so, he may initiate proceedings for recovery of the awarded amount from the person, in whose favour he has already sold the Tractor in question. (B.C. Kandpal, J.)