Delhi High Court: In the present case, appeals were filed challenging the Award dated 06-12-2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (West-01), Delhi (‘Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal while awarding compensation of Rs. 15,49,324 along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., had further directed that Respondent 1 shall pay compensation to Respondents 2 to 6, however, would have a recovery right against appellants, to recover the said compensation from them. The appellants were thus aggrieved of this direction. Navin Chawla, J.*, opined that the registered owner of the vehicle could not absolve himself of his responsibility even more so, when he had taken no further steps to get the fact of such sale registered with the Registration Authority or at least, intimating this fact to the Registration Authority and the Insurance Company. The Court found no merit in the appeal and thus dismissed it and the impugned award, insofar as it allowed Respondent 1 to seek reimbursement of the claim amount from the minor boy, was set aside.
Background
The claim petition was filed by Respondents 2 to 6 under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’) claiming therein that on 30-05-2017, the deceased along with her husband was going towards their residence and while they were crossing the road, a motorcycle hit the deceased with a great force and due to the forceful impact, the deceased fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries and later she succumbed to her injuries.
The Tribunal in its Impugned Award held that the accident took place due to the Offending Vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner and thus awarded compensation of Rs. 15,49,324 in favour of Respondents 2 to 6, directing Respondent 1 to pay the same at the first instance, however, granting a right to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the registered owner of the Offending Vehicle and the one who was driving the Offending Vehicle at the time of the accident.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that appellant was the registered owner of the Offending Vehicle as on the date of the accident. The Court relied on Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar, (2018) 3 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court, while interpreting Section 2(30) of the Act, held that it was the registered owner of the vehicle who would be liable to pay the compensation to the victims of the road accident.
The Court opined that the Insurance Company merely steps in as an indemnifier of the compensation which the registered owner of the Offending Vehicle, as being a primary person liable, must pay to the victims of the road accident. The registered owner could not absolve himself of the liability by contending that he had transferred the offending vehicle to a third person prior to the date of the accident. Neither the victims of the road accident nor the Insurance Company could run after such persons whom the registered owner claimed to have transferred the offending vehicle and could not be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which were not registered with the Registering Authority.
The Court further opined that the Insurance Company had no contractual or other relationship with such transferee of the Offending Vehicle. The liability of the Insurance Company arose only because of the contract of insurance between the registered owner of the offending vehicle and itself. If the registered owner of the offending vehicle was to seek any benefit of such contract in form of indemnifying himself against the liability, such registered owner was also liable to reimburse the compensation that might be paid by the Insurance Company to the victims of the road accident, if the Insurance Company was otherwise entitled to the same.
The Court opined that the registered owner of the vehicle could not absolve himself of his responsibility even more so, when he had taken no further steps to get the fact of such sale registered with the Registration Authority or at least, intimating this fact to the Registration Authority and the Insurance Company. The Court also opined that if the registered owner had allowed a third person, might be under a contract of sale, to use the vehicle, he remained responsible for his action and if such third person further allowed a minor or a person not holding a valid driving license to drive the vehicle, vicariously, the registered owner becomes responsible for such action of the third party.
The Court found no merit in the appeal and thus dismissed it and the impugned award, insofar as it allowed Respondent 1 to seek reimbursement of the claim amount from the minor boy, was set aside.
[Indiwar Parijat v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8013, decided on 14-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Navin Chawla
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Seema Gulati, Advocate
