Mihir Kumar Rath vs Rabinarayan Prusty And Ors.

on 29 June, 1992

Orissa High Court

Mihir Kumar Rath vs Rabinarayan Prusty And Ors. on 29 June, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993 ACJ 733, 1992 II OLR 282
Author: A Pasayat
Bench: G Pattnaik, A Pasayat
JUDGMENT A. Pasayat, J.

1. Correctness of the judgment in an appeal under Sec- 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in
short, the 'Act') is questioned in this appeal under the Letters Patent.

2. The fact situation as presented by the parties is to the following effect :

One Sadasiva Rout (respondent No. 2 herein) represented through his father guardian Harihar Rout
filed an application Under Section 110 A of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 95,000/- for the
injuries sustained by him in an accident on 14.5.1979. One Nilakantha Das (respondent No. 3
herein) is the registered owner of the motor-cycle bearing registration No. ORU 2201 which was
involved, in the accident. The Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri (in short, the 'Tribunal')
on consideration of the claims and the evidence on record carne to hold that one Rabinarayan
Prusty (respondent No. 1 herein) was liable to pay the compensation quantified at Rs, 20,000/-. For
fastening the liability, the Tribunal referred to certain documents relating to transfer of the vehicle
to Rabinarayan Prusty. One Mihir Kumar Rath (appellant herein) was impleaded in the proceeding
before the Tribunal and it was asserted that he was driving the vehicle. The Tribunal was of the view
that material on record was not sufficient to establish that the appellant Mihir was the owner of the
vehicle and/or he was driving it when the accident occurred.

3. Rabinarayan assailed correctness of the Tribunal's decision before this Court. The learned Single
Judge, who heard the appeal held that though in the normal course he would have remitted back the
matter to the Tribunal for consideration of the question as to who was the real owner in view of
controversies relating thereto, since there was ample material to show that appellant Mihir was the
owner, he decided the apoeal on merits. Reference was made to the admission of ownership by
Mihir while taking zima of the vechicle from the police authorities. It was noticed that there was no
challenge to the correctness of this admission by Mihir and no attempt was made to explain as to
why this admission was made. The admission was considered significant since there was no claim
petition in sight when it was made, and the same was against Mihir's own interest. He having not
explained as to why such admission was made, it was concluded that he was the owner of the vehicle
and he was driving the vehicle when the accident occurred. Accordingly, he was held liable to pay
the compensation.

4. Mr. Mukherji, the learned counsel for appellant submits that in view of the materials placed
before the Tribunal to show transfer of ownership of the vehicle by Nilakantha to Rabinarayan,
merely on the basis of the acknowledgement made while taking zima about the ownership of the
vehicle, the liability should not have been fastened on appellant Mihir. The learned counsel for
'respondents, howover, asserts that the analysis made by the learned Single Judge is
unimpeachable; and there is no infirmity in the judgment to warrant our interference.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1543792/ 1

 Mihir Kumar Rath vs Rabinarayan Prusty And Ors. on 29 June, 1992

5. in certain circumstances, a person registered as the owner of the vehicle need not. be Held to be
the real owner. The contractual transfer of ownership of a vehicle has to precede the application for
transfer of ownership. As between the transferor and the transferee, the sale gets completed before
the transfer of registration certificate. The failure to report the transfer may involve penal
consequences. But that does not interdict the passing of property. It is relevant to indicate that the
registration book is not a document of title. However, a presumption can be drawn that the person
named in the certificate of registration is the owner of the vehicle in the absence of other materials.
His nevertheless open to reach a conclusion on consideration of the materials available as to who is
the real owner of a vehicle when there is dispute regarding ownership.

6. Undisputedly Nilakantha is the registered owner. Whatever materials were placed by him related
to the intended transfer to Rabinarayan. Appellant Mihir participated in the proceeding, was
representing by a lawyer; but made no attempt to show as to under what circumstances he had
taken zima of the vehicle involved in the accident, claiming to be its owner. Interestingly he had
produced the registration certificate and the insurance papers relating to the vehicle at the time of
taking zima. The learned Single Judge has highlighted these aspects while fastening the liability on
appellant Mihir.

7. We find no infirmity in the conclusions of the learned Single Judge, and decline to interfere in this
appeal, which is accordingly dismissed; but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.

G.B. Pattnaik, J.

8. I agree.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1543792/ 2