FAO No. 3030 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3030 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.7.2010 Ankur Jain .. Appellant v. Paramjit Kaur and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This is an appeal filed by the registered owner of the vehicle against award dated 5.12.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short, `the Tribunal') holding him liable to satisfy the award. Briefly, the facts are that on 1.12.2007, deceased-Narinderpal Singh was going on his motor cycle towards his village Panjkoha. When he reached near Sirhind bye-pass Morinda, a Scorpio car bearing No. HR-68-6065, being driven rashly and negligently, came from Chandigarh side and hit against the motor cycle, as a result of which Narinderpal Singh fell on the road and sustained injuries. Ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. Vide impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,57,000/- to the claimants, holding the appellant liable to satisfy the award. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact, he had sold the vehicle in question to respondent No. 5- Joginder Singh and handed over the actual physical possession thereof. This was so stated by the appellant before the Tribunal and the fact was even admitted by the subsequent buyer, who was also impleaded as one of the respondents there. The appellant as well as the subsequent buyer had sworn affidavits to that effect. The submission was that in the circumstances, the appellant should not have been made liable to satisfy the award FAO No. 3030 of 2010 [2] merely because he was the registered owner, when in fact, the owner of the vehicle was respondent No. 5, who should have been held liable to satisfy the award. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The issue as to who is liable to bear the burden of compensation where it is claimed that the vehicle in question had been transferred to some one else but such a transfer has not been given effect to in the record with the Registering Authority, has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and various High Courts. In Champalal v. Ram Chander and another, AIR 1976 Rajasthan 76, Rajasthan High Court held as under: “Then Sec. 31 provides for a transfer of ownership of any such vehicle. It follows from the provisions referred to above that the registration certificate is an essential requirement before any such motor vehicle can be made use of and that any person in whose favour this certificate of registration is issued would obviously be the owner thereof. In case of any transfer of ownership in respect of that motor vehicle, the procedure contemplated under Section 31 has to be followed and till any such transfer is entered in the certificate of registration, it has to be presumed that the person in whose favour such certificate of registration stands, is the owner.” In Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. And others, 2001 ACJ 2059, Hon'ble the Supreme Court dealing with a similar proposition opined as under: “10. We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not right in holding that the appellant continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However, the appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. As owner. The appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Roy Thomas in these appeals. Roy Thomas was not a party either before the MACT or the High Court. In these appeals we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the appellant and Roy Thomas. It will be for the appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Roy Thomas if in law, he is entitled to do so.” FAO No. 3030 of 2010 [3] A Division Bench of this Court in Vipin Kumar Sharma's case (supra), referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dr. T.V.Jose's case (supra) opined that a registered owner of the vehicle was liable to satisfy the award of the Tribunal. However, it was left open to the appellant therein to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the vendee, as claimed in that case. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 12.7.2010 mk