In a point of interest judgment, the Preeminent Court of India as of late ruled in favor of Vaibhav Jain, a vehicle merchant, exculpating him of obligation in a deadly mischance including a car sold by Hindustan Engines Pvt. Ltd. The case, Vaibhav Jain v. Hindustan Engines Pvt. Ltd., raised significant questions approximately the definition of possession beneath the Engine Vehicles Act, 1988, and the duties of vehicle producers and merchants in mischance cases.
Case Background
The case begun from a appalling mischance that claimed the life of Pranay Kumar Goswami, an representative of Hindustan Engines, who was within the vehicle at the time of the occurrence. The vehicle, made by Hindustan Engines, was being test-driven by another representative when the mishap happened. The lawful beneficiaries of the perished recorded a stipend claim beneath Area 166 of the Engine Vehicles Act, 1988, against the driver, Hindustan Engines (the producer), and Vaibhav Jain, the merchant.
The Claims Tribunal at first held both Hindustan Engines and Vaibhav Jain together and severally at risk for remuneration. Vaibhav Jain, the appealing party in this case, challenged the choice, stating that as a merchant, he was not the proprietor of the vehicle at the time of the mischance and, so, ought to not be held at risk.
Supreme Court Analysis
The most concern of the Preeminent Court was whether Vaibhav Jain may well be considered as the "proprietor" of the vehicle agreeing to the Engine Vehicles Act, 1988, and hence be capable for the mishap. The Court emphasized the meaning of "proprietor" as expressed in Segment 2(30) of the Act.
"'Owner' alludes to the person recorded as the registered owner of a engine vehicle, counting a gatekeeper in the event that the proprietor could be a minor, or the individual in ownership of a vehicle beneath a hire-purchase, rent, or hypothecation understanding."
The Court famous that Hindustan Engines claimed the vehicle and no confirmation was given to illustrate that the vehicle was exchanged to Vaibhav Jain earlier to the mischance. At the time of the incident, Hindustan Motors still owned the vehicle, and both the driver and the deceased were employees of the manufacturer.
The Supreme Court made a notable observation.
"At the time of the accident, the vehicle was not only under the ownership of M/s. Hindustan Motors but also under its control and command through its employees. Therefore, in our view, the appellant, being just a dealer of M/s Hindustan Motors, was not liable for compensation as an owner of the vehicle"
The Court further clarified that the contractual obligations between the manufacturer and the dealer, particularly clauses related to defects and warranty, did not extend to liability arising from tortious acts, such as the accident in question.
It noted: "The use of the words ‘and the company will have no other liability and all liabilities other than one under warranty as aforesaid shall be to the account of the Dealer’ in the absence of specific exclusion of tortious liability arising from the use of such vehicle, cannot absolve the owner of the motor vehicle of its liability under the Motor Vehicles Act and shift it onto the dealer"
Conclusion
For the car business, the Supreme Court's ruling in this case sets a crucial precedent, especially with regard to the duties of dealers vs manufacturers. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been made clearer by the Court's decision that the vehicle's owner bears primary responsibility for accidents, rather than the dealer. This ruling upholds the ideals of justice for accident victims by guaranteeing that manufacturers cannot transfer their legal responsibility to dealers through contractual provisions.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Supreme Court judgment Motor Vehicles Act 1988 vehicle dealer liability Hindustan Motors ownership definition tortious liability accident compensation Indian automotive law.
