Owner under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 explained: Supreme Court

Kandeep Shravan | SASTRA Deemed to be University | 12th July 2020

Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and Others. 

Facts:

Two claim petitions were filed by the Appellants before the Motor Claims Tribunal for an accident which took place in May 2009.  A motor vehicle driven by one of the respondent’s- Rakesh had hit one of the by-passers Jai Devi and her niece. Jai Devi’s niece Nitin died due to the result of the accident. The registered name of the vehicle which was involved in the accident was Vijay Kumar. He claimed that the vehicle was sold to the second respondent prior to the accident in July 2007 and the possession of the vehicle along with the documents including the Registration certificate and forms 29 and 30 for vehicle transfer had been handed over. It was stated by the second respondent before the tribunal that the vehicle had already been sold to the third respondent in September 2018. The third respondent claimed that he sold the vehicle to the appellant Vijay Kumar. The appellant, in turn, responded in a written statement saying that the vehicle was sold to another person. The Tribunal held the first respondent as jointly and severally liable as the name registration certificate was in his name. The driver was also held liable along with the first respondent as the vehicle was uninsured on the day of the accident. A compensation amount of Rs. 10,000 was awarded to the Jai Devi and Rs.3,75,000 to the deceased’s parents on account of his death.

The first respondent challenged the tribunal’s award in an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court set aside tribunal’s award and allowed the appeal on the ground that there was no proper justification for the tribunal to pass an award as there was evidence that showed the succession of transfer and the appellant appeared to be the last recognized owner.

Issues:

1. Who and all are considered as an “owner” under section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle’s Act, 1988?

• Whether a registered owner has the right to fully relinquish his possession and control over the respective vehicle?

Respondent’s Argument:

The respondents urged that registered owner can be considered only as the vehicle’s ostensible owner and not as the real owner after the sale of the vehicle has taken place even though his name is present on the Registration Certificate. The respondent submitted that the appellant had the physical possession and control of the vehicle, henceforth he was liable. The respondent further submitted that the owner’s definition under section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, cannot be regarded as a complete code and contained exceptions which are not exhaustive.

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the tribunal and directed the 1^st Respondent to pay the compensation amount and set aside the High Court judgment. The Court held that the person in whose name the vehicle is registered must be considered as the owner as defined in the Act. The Court also held that since the successive transfers were not registered with the competent authority, so the transferees could not be burdened with compensation. Due to the purpose of the Act, the name registered in the records of the registering authority is considered to be the owner.