F.A.O.No.2124 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) F.A.O.No.2124 of 2008 Date of Decision 04.05.2010 Chander Bhan ...... Appellant VERSUS Smt.Kitabo and others ...... Respondents (ii) F.A.O.No.2125 of 2008 Date of Decision 04.05.2010 Chander Bhan ...... Appellant VERSUS Smt.Sunita Devi and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vaneet Soni, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate, for the respondents-claimants. Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for the respondent-Driver. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): The aforesaid two F.A.O. Nos.2124 & 2125 of 2008, preferred by the appellant-owner (herein referred as 'the appellant'), having arisen out of the common award dated 11.04.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (herein referred as 'the Tribunal) are being disposed of by this common judgment. Since the appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-63-4088 at the time of accident, therefore, the Tribunal appears to have rightly fastened the liability upon him. However, these appellants have assailed the judgment on the ground that Chander Bhan appellant had already transferred the vehicle vide agreement dated 15.03.2005 and vehicle was handed over to the purchaser prior to that i.e. on 11.03.2005. Undisputedly, the vehicle is in the name of the appellant and he was the registered owner at the time of accident. The Division Bench of this Court in case Vipin Kumar Sharma versus Jagwant Kaur and others 2007 ACJ 1249 after going through the observations of the Apex Court in case Dr.T.V.Jose versus Chacko P.M., 2001 ACJ 2059 F.A.O.No.2124 of 2008 2 (SC) observed as under:- “The Apex Court in Dr.T.V.Jose versus Chacko P.M., 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC), in para 10 had held that an owner continued to remain liable to third parties as his name had not been changed in the records of the R.T.O. It further held that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the vehicle, but an owner still continues to remain liable to third parties as long as his name continued in the record of the R.T.O. as the owner. The Apex Court observed that owner could adopt appropriate proceedings against the vendee if, in law, he was entitled to do so. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the appellant was not liable to pay compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. Once it is found that the appellant cannot escape his liability to pay compensation, there is no merit in this appeal. However, it shall be open to the appellant to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the vendee. The appeal is consequently dismissed. As such, no illegality could be found in the impugned judgment, warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are dismissed. However, the amount already deposited by the appellant towards the compensation and paid to the claimants would be adjusted. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 04.05.2010 mamta-II