Liability for an accident caused by a minor driver rests with the vehicle owner.

On 30 November 2006, Parvati was crossing a road near Rama Park when motorcycle No. DL-4SAL-8316, driven by the appellant Karan Sharma, struck her. She sustained serious injuries and died on 5 December 2006.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West District, awarded compensation of ₹12,51,467 with interest at 7.5% and imposed joint and several liability on the appellant-driver and respondent no. 2-owner.

Although the appellant was a minor on the date of the accident, the Tribunal relied on the fact that he had attained majority by the date of filing of the claim petition.

The appellant challenged the liability imposed upon him in MAC.APP. 730/2013.

In EX.F.A. 12/2016, he challenged execution proceedings initiated against him; those proceedings had been stayed by the High Court.

The offending vehicle was uninsured, and respondent no. 2-owner had remained untraceable and was proceeded against ex parte.

Whether a person who was a minor on the date of the motor accident could be saddled with liability to pay the compensation merely because he had attained majority by the date of filing of the claim petition?

Whether execution proceedings for recovery of the award amount could continue against the minor driver after liability was shifted away from him?

Whether the vehicle-owner should bear the ultimate liability where the uninsured vehicle was driven by a minor?

The Court applied the principle that a minor driver cannot be saddled with liability for a motor accident merely because he attained majority after the accident or before the claim petition was filed; the relevant date is the date of the accident.

Relying on Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 2436, the Court held that where a minor drives a motorcycle without a licence, responsibility for permitting or facilitating such use rests upon the owner, who must ensure that the vehicle is not misused by a minor; in an insured case, the insurer may be directed to satisfy the award with recovery rights against the owner.

The Court also relied on Santhosh Chhabra v. Abhishek Gureja & Ors., MAC.APP. 805/2010, where recovery rights were granted against the owner when the vehicle was driven by a minor.

Since the present vehicle was uninsured, the ultimate liability lay upon the owner.

The appellant’s minority on 30 November 2006 was undisputed.

The Tribunal erred in treating his majority on the date of filing of the claim petition as determinative, because liability had to be assessed with reference to the date of the accident, when the appellant lacked full legal capacity and was a minor.

Applying Jawahar Singh, the Court held that the owner was responsible for ensuring that the motorcycle was not used by a minor and that the owner, rather than the minor driver, must bear the financial consequence of such use.

Because the motorcycle was uninsured, there was no insurer against whom an initial payment direction with recovery rights could be made; accordingly, liability ultimately remained with respondent no. 2-owner.

The execution proceedings therefore could not continue against the appellant-driver but could proceed against the owner.

The liability was to be pursued against respondent no. 2-owner, whose vehicle was uninsured.

The claimant was given liberty to place the relevant tracing and status-report facts before the Executing Court to assist in locating the owner.

The execution proceedings were directed to continue only against respondent no. 2-owner, while proceedings against the appellant-driver stood abated.

The statutory deposit made by the appellant was directed to be refunded.

Both appeals were disposed of, and pending applications were rendered infructuous.