LAW FOR ALL

Accident claim - M.V. Act - Liability of Requisition department - State of Assam - Accident occurred before release the vehicle to the original owner - High court failed to take notice sec. 5 of Assam Act and exempted state government from liability to pay compensation - Apex court set aside the high court order and held that 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 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. = Purnya Kala Devi .... Appellant(s) Versus State of Assam & Anr. .... Respondent(s)= 2014 ( April. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41389