IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.730 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:16.05.2011 Jagdish Chander Bhanwar ...Appellant versus Jasbir Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. H.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal by the second respondent in the petition before the Tribunal is on the ground that on the date of the accident, the vehicle had been transferred in favour of the first respondent-Kashmiri and the said fact of transfer was also admitted by the purchaser as RW2. The Tribunal, however, made both the respondents before the Tribunal responsible for the claim on the ground that the registration still stood in the name of Jagdish Chander, who was the transferor and the registered owner of the vehicle. 2. At the time when the appeal was admitted and notice was ordered, stay had been granted against recovery, but it was later vacated FAO No.730 of 2000 (O&M) - 2 - on 28.09.2001 and notice of contempt was also issued against the 4th respondent. The result of further proceedings in the contempt petition is not clear from the records. The award could have passed justifiably only against the purchaser, who was already made a party. It is not always necessary that unless the registration is transferred, the liability cannot be fastened on the purchaser. A transfer of the vehicle takes place by delivery in terms of Section 19 of the Sales of Goods Act and the registration is merely a formality that is required for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act under Section 50. This point has been illustrated by a Division Bench of this Court in Vasantha Vishwanathan and others Versus V.K. Elayalwara and others-2001(8) SCC 133. The award of the Tribunal is, consequently, modified and the right of enforcement of the award shall be only on the 4th respondent in appeal and who was arrayed as the first respondent before the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.05.2011 sanjeev