Page 1

                                        REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1672 OF 2010

Purnya Kala Devi       .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Assam & Anr.                  ....  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T   

P. Sathasivam, CJI.

1) This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  impugned  final  

judgment and order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the Gauhati  

High Court in MAC Appeal No. 30 of 2003 whereby the High  

Court held that the claimant/appellant herein is entitled to a  

sum of Rs. 1,94,400/- as compensation for the death of her  

husband  in  the  motor  vehicle  accident  and  the  same  is  

payable by Abdul Salam-who was the registered owner of the  

vehicle at the relevant point of time and not by the State  

Government.   

1

Page 2

2) Brief Facts:

a) The appellant/claimant is a widow and mother of four  

children.  On 16.02.1993, at about 10:15 a.m., the claimant’s  

husband died in a road accident by a speeding bus belonging  

to Md. Abdul Salam which was not insured and was under  

requisition of the State Government at the relevant time.

b) The appellant filed MAC Case No. 34 of 1993 before the  

Motor  Accident  Claims  Tribunal  (in  short  ‘the  Tribunal’),  

Darrang,  Mangaldai  for  compensation  of  Rs.  2,00,000/-  

against  the  registered  owner–Md.  Abdul  Salam.  Sub  

Divisional  Officer  (Civil),  Udalguri  and  the  State  of  Assam  

were also impleded as parties in the said case.

c) The  registered  owner  of  the  vehicle  filed  his  reply  

contending that at the relevant time the vehicle was under  

requisition of the State Government and, hence, the liability  

to pay compensation is that of the State Government.   The  

SDO, Udalguri, Respondent No. 2 herein, on his behalf and on  

behalf  of  the State  Government,  filed a  written statement  

2

Page 3

denying any of its liability and averred that “the vehicle was  

released  on  the  same  date  at  10.30”.   The  SDO  further  

averred  that  “as  per  the  police  report,  in  the  absence  of  

driver, the Handiman of the mini bus drove the bus without  

any permission from the police and occurred the accident”.

d) By judgment  dated 11.07.2002,  the  Tribunal  directed  

the  registered owner  to  pay a  sum of Rs.  1,41,400/-  with  

interest  at  the  rate  of  9%  per  annum  to  the  

appellant/claimant  and absolved Respondent Nos. 1 and 2  

herein from any liability.  

e) Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed  

MAC Appeal No. 30 of 2003 in the Gauhati High Court not  

only  for  higher  compensation  but  also  for  absolving  

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein from any liability.

f) By impugned order dated 04.01.2007, though the High  

Court  enhanced  the  compensation by Rs.  50,000/-,  it  was  

held  that  the  State  Government  cannot  be  held  liable  for  

paying  compensation  to  the  appellant  under  the  Motor  

Vehicles Act,  1988 (for short “the 1988 Act”)  because the  

3

Page 4

liability to pay compensation under the said Act is upon the  

registered owner, insurer or driver of the vehicle or all or any  

of them.

g) Aggrieved by such direction, the appellant has filed this  

appeal by way of special leave.

3) Heard Mr. Jatin Zaveri, learned counsel for the appellant  

and Mr. Navnit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

Contentions:

4) The appellant  has  filed  the  above appeal  contending  

that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was under  

requisition of the State Government and hence, under the  

provisions of the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles  

Act, 1968 (for short “the Assam Act”), Respondent No. 1 is  

liable to pay compensation.

5) On the other hand, it is the stand of Respondent No. 1  

that unlike the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short ‘the 1939  

Act’), unless a vehicle is registered in the name of a person,  

he cannot be regarded as the owner of the vehicle under the  

1988 Act.  Under Section 2(30) of the 1988 Act, a person, in  4

Page 5

order to be regarded as an owner, must have the vehicle  

registered in his name and where such a person is a minor,  

his  guardian  would  be  regarded  as  the  owner.   The  said  

provision also indicates that in relation to a motor vehicle, a  

person may be regarded as owner though he may not be the  

registered owner of the vehicle provided he is in possession  

of the vehicle on the basis of a hire-purchase agreement or  

an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation.  As  

such, Respondent No. 1, neither being a registered owner of  

the vehicle nor being in possession of the vehicle pursuant to  

a hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an  

agreement  of  hypothecation,  is  not  liable  to  pay  any  

compensation  to  the  appellant/claimant.   On  facts,  it  is  

stated  that  the  then  SDO(C),  Udalguri  requisitioned  the  

vehicle  (Bus)  bearing  Registration  No.  AMZ  6858  on  

14.02.1993  which  was  placed  on  Government  Duty.  On  

16.02.1993, at 10.30 a.m., when the said vehicle was taken  

out of the Police Station Campus and the driver took a turn  

towards  Udalguri  Tiniali,  a  cyclist  named  Dhan  Bahadur  

Chetri  (since deceased), a chowkidar at Udalguri Girls H.S.  

5

Page 6

School,  who  was  coming  towards  Udalguri  town  from  his  

school, was knocked down by the said vehicle leading to his  

death.  The accident took place after the release of the said  

vehicle,  i.e.,  on 16.02.1993 and the  offending vehicle  was  

without insurance at the time when it was being plied and  

met with the accident.  Under Section 168(1) of the 1988 Act,  

it is the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle or any of  

them who could have been liable to pay compensation.  As  

such,  the  State  Government  is  not  liable  to  pay  

compensation to the appellant as it  had only requisitioned  

the vehicle and was neither the owner nor the driver of the  

offending vehicle  in  view of the provision as  envisaged in  

Section 2(30)  of the 1988 Act.   The offending vehicle had  

already been released by the State Government before the  

accident and the same was evident from the records.  The  

appellant had already been awarded compensation by the  

Tribunal which was further enhanced by the High Court and  

any dispute regarding the liability of paying compensation by  

the State Government lies with the owner of the vehicle and  

the appellant has no legal right to agitate her case in the  

6

Page 7

present facts and circumstances and remedy sought for by  

the appellant was already allowed by the Tribunal and the  

High  Court.   Furthermore,  the  vehicle  in  question  in  the  

instant case was driven by the owner of the vehicle without  

any valid insurance policy at the time of the accident.  The  

High  Court  has  given  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  

relevant  provisions  of  law.   The  impugned  judgment  and  

order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the High Court is justified  

on all accounts.

Discussion:

6) Section 2(19) of the 1939 Act  defined the expression  

“owner” to mean where the person in possession of a motor  

vehicle is a minor, the guardian of such minor and in relation  

to a motor vehicle, which is the subject of a hire-purchase  

agreement,  the person in  possession of the vehicle  under  

that agreement.

7) On 26.04.1969, the Assam Act came into force.  Section  

2(b) of the Assam Act defines the expression “owner” almost  

7

Page 8

identically as defined under Section 2(19) of the 1939 Act  

which is as under:-

“2(b) “owner” includes where the person in possession of  the vehicle is minor, the guardian of such a minor, and in  relation to a vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase  agreement the person in possession of the vehicle under  that agreement;”   

8) The 1939 Act  was consolidated and amended by the  

1988 Act.  Section 2(30) of the 1988 Act defines “owner” to  

mean as under:-

“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.”

9) It  is  not  in  dispute  that  on  14.02.1993,  the  SDO,  

Udalguri requisitioned a Bus belonging to Md. Abdul Salam  

under  the  Assam  Act.   While  under  requisition,  on  

16.02.1993, the Bus involved in an accident and killed the  

husband of the appellant at  10.15 a.m.  At that time, the  

vehicle was not insured.   

10) The  appellant/claimant  claimed  compensation  of  Rs.  

2,00,000/- against the owner of the vehicle, i.e., Md. Abdul  

8

Page 9

Salam  as  well  as  the  State  of  Assam-Respondent  No.  1  

herein. The registered owner filed the reply contending that  

Respondent No. 1 was liable to pay compensation.  The SDO,  

Udalguri,  Respondent No. 2 herein, filed written statement  

before the Tribunal alleging that the vehicle was released on  

the date of accident at 10.30 a.m.  In this regard, it is useful  

to refer the stand taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO)

(C), Udalguri on behalf of the State of Assam in the following  

terms:

“The fact of the case is that the vehicle was requisitioned  by  the  Sub-Divisional  Officer  (Civil)  Udalguri  on  public  demand.  The vehicle was handed to O/C of Police Udalguri  for their duties.

 As  per  police  report  in  the  absence  of  driver  the  Handiman  of  the  Mini  Bus  drove  the  bus  without  any  permission from the police and occurred the accident.

The vehicle was released on same date at 10.30 and  the accident occurred at 10.30.”

11) Though it was stated that the vehicle was released on  

the same date at 10.30 a.m., the State or its officers failed to  

place and substantiate the same by placing any material.  It  

is  relevant  to  refer  Section  5(1)  of  the  Assam Act,  which  

reads as under:

9

Page 10

“5. Release  from  requisition.  (1)  The  officer  or  authority requisitioning a vehicle may, at any time, release  the vehicle from requisition and when it is decided so to  do, a notice in writing shall be served on the owner to take  delivery of the vehicle on or with such date and from such  place and such person as may be specified therein.”

12) It is clear that Section 5(1) of the Assam Act provides  

that a vehicle may be released from requisition after service  

of  notice  in  writing  on  the  owner  to  take  delivery  of  the  

vehicle on or with such date and from such place or from  

such person as may be specified therein and with effect from  

such  date  no  liability  for  compensation  shall  lie  with  the  

officer  or  authority.   In  spite  of  our  repeated  questions,  

learned counsel for the State of Assam has brought to our  

notice only the above-quoted plea taken by the SDO (C) and  

has not placed any material, such as notice in writing served  

on  the  owner,  to  prove  that  the  delivery  of  vehicle  was  

effected on such date and time in terms of Section 5(1) of  

the Assam Act.

13) Though the above point was pressed into service, the  

High Court, without adverting to Section 5 of the Assam Act,  

merely on the basis of the definition of “owner” as contained  

in Section 2(30) of the 1988 Act, mulcted the award payable  

by  the  owner  of  the  vehicle.   The  High  Court  failed  to  10

Page 11

appreciate  that  at  the relevant  time the offending vehicle  

was under  the  requisition of Respondent  No. 1  –  State  of  

Assam under the provisions of the Assam Act.   Therefore,  

Respondent No. 1 was squarely covered under the definition  

of “owner” as contained in Section 2(30) of the 1988 Act.  

The High Court failed to appreciate 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  the  effect  that  a  person  in  control  and  

possession of the vehicle should be construed as the “owner”  

and not alone the registered owner.  The High Court further  

failed  to  appreciate  the  legislative  intention  that  the  

registered owner of the vehicle should not be held liable if  

the vehicle was not in his possession and control.  The High  

Court also failed to appreciate that Section 146 of the 1988  

Act requires that no person shall use or cause or allow any  

other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place without  

an insurance policy meeting the requirements of Chapter XI  

of the 1988 Act and the State Government has violated the  

11

Page 12

statutory provisions of the 1988 Act.  The Tribunal also erred  

in  accepting  the  allegation  of  Respondent  No.  2  that  the  

vehicle was released on the date of the accident at 10.30  

a.m. and the accident occurred at 10.30 a.m. without any  

evidence even though in the claim petition, it was stated that  

the accident had occurred at 10.15 a.m.

14) In the light of what is stated above, we accept the stand  

taken by the appellant and hold that the appellant/claimant  

is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,94,400/- as fixed by the  

High Court with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from  

the date  of claim petition till  the date of deposit  and the  

same is payable by the State of Assam.  The amount shall be  

deposited before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks  

from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such  

deposit  being  made,  the  appellant  –  Purnya  Kala  Devi  is  

permitted to withdraw the same.  The appeal is allowed on  

the above terms.   

...…………….…………………………CJI             (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

 .…....…………………………………J.      12

Page 13

 (RANJAN GOGOI)  

 .…....…………………………………J.        (N.V. RAMANA)                           

NEW DELHI; APRIL 07, 2014.  

13