CMA/2904/2022 of PRAVIN KUMAR Vs THANGARASU on 24 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Mala J.)

The owner of the car, aggrieved by the Award of the Claims Tribunal, dated 29.08.2021, made in MCOP.No.2177/2019, directing him to pay the compensation amount of Rs.22,39,731/- to the claimant, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred on 28.06.2019, has filed the above appeal.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the appeal.

The summary of facts leading to this appeal are as follows:- On 28.06.2019, at about 6.00 p.m., when the 1st respondent, was driving his two-wheeler, bearing Regn.No.TN-37-AW-0892, on Bhavani-Aapakkoodal Main Road, and when he was nearing Karukkupalayam Junction, a Ford Icon car, bearing Regn.No.Tn-39-Z-1881, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came behind the 1st respondent’s two-wheeler, and hit it, causing him grievous injuries. According to the 1st respondent, at the time of the accident, he was aged 51 years, a driver by

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

profession and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. The 1st respondent therefore filed the claim petition seeking Rs.30 lakhs as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

The appellant as the owner of the Car, and the 2nd respondent, as the insurer of the car, contested the claim petition. The appellant, in his counter, denied the manner of accident, liability, the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent, the age and avocation of the 1st respondent and the territorial jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to try the case. The appellant further contended that the liability, if any, was only that of the 2nd respondent and the transferees of the vehicle involved in the accident, since he had sold the vehicle in question, to one Parthiban of Sethumadai, on 02.09.2017, for a sum of Rs.60,000/-, who in turn sold the vehicle to one Arunkumar, on 22.08.2018, for a sum of Rs.60,000/-. Hence, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

The 2nd respondent / Insurance Company, filed its counter, denying the manner of accident, injuries suffered by the 1st respondent, the medical treatment undergone by him, age, employment and income of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent alleged that the accident

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent who without wearing a helmet, crossed the road suddenly. The 2nd respondent further contended that the car involved in the accident did not have any Registration Certificate to ply on the road and the same was against the policy’s terms and conditions. Therefore, the 2nd respondent contended that it was the appellant who was liable to pay the compensation. The 2nd respondent further contended that the compensation claimed was excessive and speculative and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

Before the Claims Tribunal, the 1st respondent was examined as PW1 and 12 documents were marked on the side of the 1st respondent. The appellant examined himself as RW1 and marked 6 documents on his behalf. On the side of the 2nd respondent, Insurance Company, one Sathish Kumar, Junior Assistant, RTO, Tiruppur North, was examined as RW2 and 2 documents were marked in support of its case. The Certificate issued by the Medical Board, certifying that the 1st respondent suffered 60% disability was marked as Ex.C1.

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

The Claims Tribunal, on an assessment of the entire evidence on record, framed necessary issues. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the Claims Tribunal held that since the Regional office of the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company was within its limit, it had the territorial jurisdiction to try the claim petition. On the issue of liability, the Claims Tribunal held that though the appellant had marked Ex.R1 [Sale Agreement] and Ex.R2 [Delivery Note], to show that he had sold the vehicle to one Praveenkumar, who in turn had sold the said vehicle to one Arunkumar, Ex.R2, the copy of the expired Registration Certificate of the offending car revealed that the appellant was the owner of the car. The Claims Tribunal finding that the appellant had failed to produce any document to show that there was a name change in the Registration Certificate, held that the appellant was the owner of the car, and that he was liable to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent. On the issue of manner of accident, the Claims Tribunal, based on Exs.P1 and P2, the FIR and the Final Report and on the basis of the evidence of PW1, held

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

that the driver of the car was responsible for the accident. On the issues of liability of the Insurance Company, the 2nd respondent, the Claims Tribunal held that since the car, plied without a valid Registration Certificate, and caused the accident, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. The Claims Tribunal further held that since the policy conditions were breached, the principle of ‘’Pay and Recovery’’ did not apply. Hence, the Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition by mulcting the liability on the owner of the car, the appellant herein and exonerated the Insurance Company, the 2nd respondent herein. Aggrieved by the Award of the Claims Tribunal, the owner of the car has preferred the above appeal.

The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the liability of the appellant to pay the compensation to the claimant. The learned counsel submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in mulcting the liability on the appellant, overlooking that at the time of the accident, the appellant was not the owner, since he had sold the vehicle to one Parthiban, who in turn, sold it to one Arunkumar. The learned counsel therefore

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

contended that the liability was only that of the transferees and not the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that since there was a valid subsisting policy at the time of the accident, the 2nd respondent, the insurer of the car, was bound to pay and recover the compensation amount from the transferees of the car.

We have heard both sides and perused the materials on record before us.

Admittedly, the offending vehicle, the Ford Ikon Car, bearing Regn.No.TN-39-Z-1881, originally belonged to the appellant and he later sold the vehicle to one Parthiban, S/o.Thirugnanam, on 02.09.2017. The said Parthiban, on 22.08.2018. in turn, sold the vehicle to one Arunkumar. According to the appellant, on transfer of vehicle by him, he ceased to be the owner of the car and therefore, the liability was only that of the transferees and the 2nd respondent. The accident, indisputably took place on 28.06.2019, much before the transfer of the offending vehicle by the appellant. However, the Junior Assistant attached to the Tiruppur North RTO, who was examined as RW2, marked Ex.X2, in which the registration details of the offending vehicle were given. From

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

Ex.X2, it is clear that the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, did not have a valid Registration Certificate and a Fitness Certificate, since the same expired on 08.06.2019 and 06.06.2019, respectively. From Ex.X2, it is also clear that the appellant’s name is recorded as the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, from Ex.X2, it is clear that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was registered in the name of the appellant. Though the appellant contends that he had transferred the vehicle, the Registration Certificate was not renewed and it continued to bear the name of the appellant as the registered owner.

At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to Section 2[30] of the Motor Vehicles Act, which defines ‘’an owner’’. As per Section 2[30], ‘’the owner is a person in whose name the motor vehicle stand registered and who, for the purpose of the Act, would be treated as owner’’. From a reading of Section 2[30], it is clear that even though the appellant transferred the vehicle before the accident, since the Registration Certificate was not transferred in the name of the transferees, but continued in the name of the appellant, the appellant is to be treated as the owner for the

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

purposes of the Act.

In this regard, useful reference is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and Others [2018 [3] SCC 1], where, while considering the definition of the expression ‘owner’ as defined under Section 2[30] of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Apex Court held as follows:- ‘’The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges from the above decisions is that in view of the definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2[30], it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the ‘owner’. However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner.’’

The appellant further contended that since there was a valid subsisting policy, covering the insurable incident, the 2nd respondent, as the insurer of the car, was liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the subsequent

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

transferees. The learned counsel also submitted that even if there was a violation of the provisions of Section 39 and Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the violation is only a punishable one and the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation remains. First of all, we note that in the claim petition, though the 2nd respondent has referred to as the insurer, the details of the policy were not given. Even the appellant has not produced the particulars or the copy of the policy. Therefore, the contention that there was a valid subsisting policy, covering the insurable incident, stands unproved. Even for arguments sake, if it is assumed that there was a policy, even then the 2nd respondent would not be liable since the offending vehicle plied on the road without any valid Registration Certificate. In our view, in the absence of a valid Registration Certificate and Fitness Certificate, for the offending vehicle, the 2nd respondent cannot be made liable even on the principles of ‘’Pay and Recover’’. The appellant’s contention that non- possession of valid Registration Certificate is only a punishable offence and therefore, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay and recover, cannot be countenanced in view of the following judgment

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

of the Apex Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others [2014 [9] SCC 324], had an occasion to deal with the issue of the consequences of using a vehicle without a valid Registration Certificate. In the said case, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the owner for damages caused to the vehicle while plying on the road without a valid Registration Certificate was considered and it was held as follows:- ‘’14.Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 11.01.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 02.02.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.01.2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act of made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract.’’

The said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed in a subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara [Civil Appeal No.5887 of 2021 dated 30.09.2021]. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- ‘’In the present case, the temporary registration of the respondent’s vehicle had expired on 28-07-2011. Not only was the vehicle driven, but also taken to another city, where it was stationed overnight in a place other than the respondent’s premises. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration. In these circumstances, the ratio of Narinder Singh (supra) applies, in the opinion of this court. That Narinder Singh (supra) was in the context of an accident, is immaterial. Despite this, the respondent plied his vehicle and took it to Jodhpur, where the theft took place. It is of no consequence, that the car was not plying on the road, when it was stolen; the material fact is that concededly, it was driven to the place from where it

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

was stolen, after the expiry of temporary registration. But for its theft, the respondent would have driven back the vehicle. What is important is this Court’s opinion of the law, that when an insurable incident that potentially results in liability occurs, there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance. Therefore, on the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven/used without a valid registration, amounting to a clear violation of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This results in a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as held by this Court in Narinder Singh (supra), entitling the insurer to repudiate the policy.’’

From the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the use of vehicle on the public road without a valid registration, amounts not only to violation of the provisions of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but also results in breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, entitling the insurer to repudiate the policy. Therefore, even the contention of the appellant that the violation of Section 39 and Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is at the most punishable offence and

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

therefore, the 2nd respondent cannot wriggle out of its liability, cannot be accepted.

At the risk of repetition, it is reiterated that the policy copy has not been marked by the appellant and therefore, in the absence of the copy of the insurance policy, the appellant cannot mulct the liability on the 2nd respondent, more so, when there has been a violation of provisions under Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Claims Tribunal dated 29.10.2021 passed in MCOP No.2177/2019, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 24-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

To

1. The Special Sub Judge-1, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Salem.

2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd Divisional Office,Sethu Krishna Trade Centre, Trichy Main Road, Gugai, Salem-6

3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai.

CMA No. 2904 of 2022

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 2904 of 2022 AND CMP NO. 22444 OF 2022 24-09-2026