| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Vaibhav Jain vs. Hindustan Motors Pvt. Ltd. |
| Introduction | The case states liability for compensation arising from a vehicle accident involving the death of an employee during a test drive, raising issues of ownership and responsibility. |
| Factual Background | The deceased, Pranay Kumar Goswami, an employee of Hindustan Motors, died in an accident while a service engineer drove a vehicle during a test drive. The vehicle was under the possession of the appellant, a dealer. The compensation was claimed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and both Hindustan Motors and the dealer were held jointly liable. |
| Legal Issues |
|
| Applicable Law | Section 2(30) and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Order 41 Rule 33 CPC |
| Analysis | The court analyzed that the dealer was not the owner of the vehicle and could not be held liable for the accident. Hindustan Motors, as the owner of the vehicle, was responsible, and the liability could not be shifted to the dealer. The clauses of the Dealership Agreement did not absolve the manufacturer of tortious liability. |
| Conclusion | The court concluded that the appellant (dealer) was not responsible for compensation as the vehicle was under the control of Hindustan Motors. Hindustan Motors was liable for the compensation awarded. |
| Current Scenario | The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the recovery of any compensation paid from Hindustan Motors with interest. |
CASE SUMMARY – The case is about a vehicle accident in which an employee of Hindustan Motors died during a test drive. The Claims Tribunal held both Hindustan Motors and the dealer liable for compensation. On appeal, the court determined that the dealer was not the owner or in control of the vehicle at the time of the accident, and thus not liable for compensation. Hindustan Motors, as the owner of the vehicle, was solely responsible. The Supreme Court allowed the dealer to recover any compensation paid from Hindustan Motors with interest.
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
READ ALSO – ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY AND STAMP DUTY UNDER KARNATAKA STAMP ACT
