PURNYA KALA DEVI Vs STATE OF ASSAM
Bench: P SATHASIVAM,RANJAN GOGOI,N.V. RAMANA
Case number: C.A. No.-001672-001672 / 2010
Diary number: 27436 / 2007
Advocates: JATIN ZAVERI Vs
CORPORATE LAW GROUP
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