Vehicle Owner As Per RTO Records Liable For Accident Even If It Occurred Within Prescribed 30 Days For Reporting Transfer

In PRAKASH CHAND DAGA vs SAVETA SHARMA & ORS., the appellant, original owner of a Santro Car sold said vehicle to Ms. Saveta Sharma, first respondent on 11.09.2009. According to the appellant, after receiving due consideration, the possession was transferred to said first respondent. An accident occurred on 09.10.2009 in which one Rakesh Kumar, second respondent, received injuries.

Since the liability was fastened on the driver and first respondent, the aforesaid decision was challenged by them in the High Court which found that despite the sale of the vehicle on 11.09.2009, no transfer of ownership, in accordance with Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was effected and as such the appellant continued to be the owner in terms of definition as incorporated in Section 2(30) of the Act. Relying on the decision of this Court in Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others, the High Court decided that that the Insurance Company is liable to make the compensation to the claimant and the Insurance Company will have the recovery rights to recover the same from the registered owner i.e. respondent No.1 of the offending vehicle.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the accident had occurred within thirty days of the transfer when the statutory period as prescribed under Section 50(1)(b) of the Act had not expired and as such the liability could not be fastened on the present appellant.

On appeal, the Supreme Court referring to Pushpa alias Leela and Ors. Vs. Shakuntala and Ors. and Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others held that 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. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the first respondent was the “owner” of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him.