The Supreme Court has explained the scope of term “owner” under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act..A Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud held that for the purposes of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the registering authority is the owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) and such person is liable to pay compensation..The case has its genesis in an accident, which happened in May 2009 resulting in the death of a child and injuries to his aunt. Two claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal)..The vehicle involved in the accident was registered in the name of Vijay Kumar, the First respondent..According to the First respondent, he had sold the vehicle to the Second respondent on 12 July 2007 prior to the accident and had handed over possession of the vehicle together with relevant documents including the registration certificate, and forms 29 and 30 for transfer of the vehicle. The Second respondent stated before the Tribunal that he had sold the vehicle to the Third respondent on 18 September 2008. The Third respondent in turn claimed before the Tribunal to have sold the vehicle to the appellant. The appellant, in the course of his written statement claimed that he had sold the vehicle to Meer Singh. The succession of transfers was put forth as a defence to the claim..In 2012, the Tribunal ordered payment of compensation. The Tribunal noted that the registration certificate of the offending vehicle continued to be in the name of the First respondent. It, therefore, held the First respondent jointly and severally liable together with the driver of the vehicle..The first respondent challenged this order before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which allowed the appeal on the ground that there was no justification for the Tribunal to pass an award against the registered owner when there was evidence that he had transferred the vehicle and the last admitted owner was the appellant..The appellant challenged this verdict in Supreme Court..The primary issue to be addressed revolved around the scope of the term ‘owner’ under Section 2(30) of the Act. Section 2(30) reads as follows:.“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..A catena of precedents was cited by both parties to buttress the case..One of the cases which was considered by the Court was Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam. The said case, involved a situation where the registered owner of a vehicle involved in an accident denied his liability to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased victim on the ground that the state government had requisitioned the vehicle. The High Court had absolved the state government of its liability but the decision of the High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court which held that the underlying legislative intention in including in the definition of “owner” a person in possession of a vehicle either under an agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation or under a hire-purchase agreement to was to ensure that a person in control and possession of the vehicle should be construed as the “owner” and not alone the registered owner..However, in the present case, the Supreme Court distinguished the case of Purnya Kala Devi..“Purnya Kala Devi does not hold that a person who transfers the vehicle to another but continues to be the registered owner under Section 2(30) in the records of the registering authority is absolved of liability. The situation which arose before the court in that case must be borne in mind because it was in the context of a compulsory act of requisitioning by the state that this Court held, by analogy of reasoning, that the registered owner was not liable.”.The Court also proceeded to consider other cases including HDFC Bank Limited v. Reshma and held that the thread which emerges is that in view of the definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the ‘owner’..However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner..But in a situation such as the present where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability..“Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), making a departure from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the 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. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the registering authority.”.Further, the court also addressed the contention of the appellant that a failure to intimate the transfer will only result in a fine under Section 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the vehicle..“In Dr T V Jose, this Court observed that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. But for the purposes of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the registering authority is the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law must be fulfilled.”.It, therefore, allowed the appeal and directed that the liability to compensate the claimants in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal will stand fastened upon the First respondent..Read the judgment below.
The Supreme Court has explained the scope of term “owner” under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act..A Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud held that for the purposes of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the registering authority is the owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) and such person is liable to pay compensation..The case has its genesis in an accident, which happened in May 2009 resulting in the death of a child and injuries to his aunt. Two claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal)..The vehicle involved in the accident was registered in the name of Vijay Kumar, the First respondent..According to the First respondent, he had sold the vehicle to the Second respondent on 12 July 2007 prior to the accident and had handed over possession of the vehicle together with relevant documents including the registration certificate, and forms 29 and 30 for transfer of the vehicle. The Second respondent stated before the Tribunal that he had sold the vehicle to the Third respondent on 18 September 2008. The Third respondent in turn claimed before the Tribunal to have sold the vehicle to the appellant. The appellant, in the course of his written statement claimed that he had sold the vehicle to Meer Singh. The succession of transfers was put forth as a defence to the claim..In 2012, the Tribunal ordered payment of compensation. The Tribunal noted that the registration certificate of the offending vehicle continued to be in the name of the First respondent. It, therefore, held the First respondent jointly and severally liable together with the driver of the vehicle..The first respondent challenged this order before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which allowed the appeal on the ground that there was no justification for the Tribunal to pass an award against the registered owner when there was evidence that he had transferred the vehicle and the last admitted owner was the appellant..The appellant challenged this verdict in Supreme Court..The primary issue to be addressed revolved around the scope of the term ‘owner’ under Section 2(30) of the Act. Section 2(30) reads as follows:.“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..A catena of precedents was cited by both parties to buttress the case..One of the cases which was considered by the Court was Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam. The said case, involved a situation where the registered owner of a vehicle involved in an accident denied his liability to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased victim on the ground that the state government had requisitioned the vehicle. The High Court had absolved the state government of its liability but the decision of the High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court which held that the underlying legislative intention in including in the definition of “owner” a person in possession of a vehicle either under an agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation or under a hire-purchase agreement to was to ensure that a person in control and possession of the vehicle should be construed as the “owner” and not alone the registered owner..However, in the present case, the Supreme Court distinguished the case of Purnya Kala Devi..“Purnya Kala Devi does not hold that a person who transfers the vehicle to another but continues to be the registered owner under Section 2(30) in the records of the registering authority is absolved of liability. The situation which arose before the court in that case must be borne in mind because it was in the context of a compulsory act of requisitioning by the state that this Court held, by analogy of reasoning, that the registered owner was not liable.”.The Court also proceeded to consider other cases including HDFC Bank Limited v. Reshma and held that the thread which emerges is that in view of the definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the ‘owner’..However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner..But in a situation such as the present where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability..“Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), making a departure from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the 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. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the registering authority.”.Further, the court also addressed the contention of the appellant that a failure to intimate the transfer will only result in a fine under Section 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the vehicle..“In Dr T V Jose, this Court observed that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. But for the purposes of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the registering authority is the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law must be fulfilled.”.It, therefore, allowed the appeal and directed that the liability to compensate the claimants in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal will stand fastened upon the First respondent..Read the judgment below.
